HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Update June 2004
~
,..
,..
,..
SUPPLEMENTAL
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
,...
,...
,..
,...
PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
MICHIGAN ROAD
,..
CARMEL, INDIANA
,...
PREPARED FOR
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
UPDATED
JUNE 2004
f" ("'\ C"
,',\ \~~
t>\J
A&F ENGINEERING CO.. LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8365 KEYSTONE CFtOSSING, SUITE 201
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240
(317) 202-0864
.
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT
This Analysis and the ideas, designs and concepts contained herein are the
exclusive intellectual property of A&F Engineering Co., LLC. and are not
to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent
of A&F Engineering Co., LLC.
@2004, A&F Engineering Co., LLC.
--
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES........ ........................... ................................... .......... ... .... ........ ....... .............. ........................................ II
CER TIFICA TION .............................................................................................................................. .............................. IV
INTR 0 D U CTI 0 N ................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................................................... .................................... 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT........................................................................................................ ....... ...... ..................3
STUD Y AREA.......................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SySTEM.......................................................................................................... 5
DESCRIPTION OF FUTURE ROADWAY PROJECTS............................................................................................................. 7
TRAFFIC DATA............................................................ ................................. ........ ....... .......... .........................................7
REDISTRmUTION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................................ 7
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................9
INTERNAL TRIPS.......................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
PASS-BY TRIPS ......................................... ............... .................................................................................... ...................9
TABLE 2 - GENERATED PASS-BY TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................9
NEAR - BY V A CANT LAND........................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 0
TABLE 3 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND..................................................................................l 0
TABLE 4 - INTERNAL TRIP AND PASS-BY TRIP REDUCTIONS FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND................................... 10
PEAK HOUR .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 0
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRmUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS............................................................................................. .11
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SySTEM................. .................................................................................... 20
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANAL Y S IS ........................................................................................................................ 25
TABLE 5 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES: MICHIGAN ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS ..25
TABLE 6 - 24-HoUR GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................25
TABLE 7 - GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES: MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS ................................26
TABLE 8 - SUM OF EXISTING AND GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES: MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED NORTH ACCESs27
ANNU AL G R 0 WTH RATE FORB A CK GR 0 UND TRAFFIC................................................................................................. 29
YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES...................................................................................................................... ..............29
REDISTRmUTION OF YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES.................................................................................................... 29
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF S ER VICE...... ....... ....... . . ....... . .... .. ... ...... ... ... ... .......... ......... ..... .......... . . . .. . ..... ..... ....... ... .. . . ... ..31
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS...................................................................................................................... ..........32
TABLE 9 - MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH STREET ....... .... .......... ... ... ... ... ......... .... ..... ................. ................ ........ ....... ........ .44
TABLE 10 - MICHIGAN ROAD & 106TH STREET........................................................................................................ 45
TABLE 11 - MICHIGAN ROAD & RETAIL PARKWAy.... .... .......... ..... ............ .......... ............. ..... ............ .....................47
TABLE 12 - MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED NORTH' ACCESS ...................................................................................48
CON CLU S ION S .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
REco MMEND A TIO N S .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
I
--
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: AREA MAP ..................................... ................................................................................................................4
FIGURE 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION SCHEMATICS .......................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 3: TOTAL REDISTRffiUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES DUE TO COMMERCE DRNE EXTENSION ....................................8
FIGURE 4A: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF NON PASS-BY GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS) ............ .12
FIGURE 4 B: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF P ASS- B Y GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS) ........... ..13
FIGURE 5A: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF NON PASS-BY GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL
PARKWAY ONLy).................................. .......... ................................................... ................................................ .14
FIGURE 5B: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF PASS-BY GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL
PARKWAY ONLy).......................................................................................................... ..................................... .15
FIGURE 6A: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF NON PASS-BY GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS).................... 16
FIGURE 6B: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF P ASS- B Y GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS).................... 17
FIGURE 7 A: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF NON P ASS- BY GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL
P AR KW A YON L Y) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
FIGURE 7B: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF PASS-BY GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL
PARKWAY ONLy)....................................................................................................................... ......... .... .. .. .. . . .. .. 19
FIGURE 8: TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE
EXTENSION /WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCES s) .....................................................................................21
FIGURE 9: TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE
EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY) ............................................22
FIGURE 1 0: TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE
EXTENSION / WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS) ......................................................................................23
FIGURE 11 : TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE
EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY) ............................................24
FIGURE 12: REDISTRffiUTED YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION) .........................30
FIGURE 13: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ... ........ ............ ...... .... ................ ... ... .... ........ ...... .... ...... ... ......... ......... ....... .....34
FIGURE 14: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ANO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITHOUT
COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION /WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)........................................................35
FIGURE 15: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITHOUT
COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL P ARKW A Y ONLY) ..............36
FIGURE 16: SUM OF REDISTRffiUTED EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS) ............................................37
II
--
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FIGURE 17: SUM OF REDISTRffiUTED EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)... 3 8
FIGURE 18: YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION) .............................................39
FIGURE 19: SUM OF YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITHOUT
COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)........................................................40
FIGURE 20: SUM OF YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITHOUT
COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)..............41
FIGURE 21: SUM OF REDISTRffiUTED YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)............................42
FIGURE 22: SUM OF REDISTRffiUTED YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION / MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA RETAIL PARKWAY
o NL Y) .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
III
--
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my immediate
supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation
engIneerIng.
t4
V . Fehribach, P .E.
Indiana Registration 890237
\\\\\\'"11111111
",\\~\ J. F [H D 11////
" <_ \~ If I/} //
~ .....\'V \\\'"111" <7 'l
...... .c~ \\\ '" ~;'
~ k V ,"<yG \ S T ER("" C' ~
2 0;' ./' ~ 0 ""... ~ ~
~ (No.890237\ ~
~ ~ STATE ~ ::::
~ ~ ......." OF "...... ~ ~
~ ~ ""I Iv 0 I t>- ~ ~\\" ~ $'
'l ~ 11"'"11\\\\\\ ~ ~
///////s / ONA L t.~~\\\""
/1/11111111'\\\\\
A&F ENGINEERING Co., INc.
/~dL-
R. Matt Brown P.E.
Indiana Registration 10200056
\\\\\"1111111111
",\\\"\"\ HEW 11////
" " 6> //
~ ~ Y' \\\\\"""'111 ~ 'l
~ ,\' \ S T E '" 0 ~
;2 . .........'~<yG R('o"'., * ~
~c:ci ~~~
~ No.1 0200056 ~ ~
-
_ ... STATE .. ~
~ ...<) ~..., OF ...~ ~ 2
~ ~ "',,1 Iv 0 I t>- ~ \"..., ~ $
'l ~ "'1'....,,\\\\ ~ ~
/////I/S / ONA L t.~~\\\\",
11111'"11'''\\\\
IV
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of the Indiana Department of
Transportation and the City of Carmel, on behalf of Duke Construction, is for a proposed retail
facility that is to be located east of Michigan Road between 96th Street and 106th Street in Carmel,
Indiana.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed
development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This
analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site
is developed.
Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the
anticipated traffic volumes or will determine the modifications that will be required to the system if
it is determined there will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes.
Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis.
These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements which will
accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and
egress, to and from the proposed development, with minimal interference to traffic on the public
street system.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this analysis is as follows:
First, to make traffic volume counts at the following locations:
. Michigan Road & 96th Street
. Michigan Road & 106th Street
. Michigan Road & Retail Parkway
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed retail
development.
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will serve to
provide access to the proposed retail development.
1
--
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development onto the public
roadway system and intersections which have been identified as the study area.
Fifth, to prepare a traffic signal warrant analysis at the intersection of Michigan Road and the
proposed development's north access drive. This analysis will consider all future traffic generated
by the proposed development.
Sixth, to prepare an analysis including a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each
intersection included in the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Conditions - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic
volumes.
SCENARIO 2A: Proposed Development without Commerce Drive Extension - Add the traffic
volumes that will be generated by the proposed development to the existing
traffic volumes. This scenario will not consider a Commerce Drive
extension to 96th Street and will include direct access to the proposed
development via three Michigan Road access drives.
SCENARIO 2B: Proposed Development without Commerce Drive Extension (Limited Access)
- Add the traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed
development to the existing traffic volumes. This scenario will not include a
Commerce Drive extension to 96th Street and will consider all Michigan
Road access to be provided via the existing Retail Parkway only.
SCENARIO 3A: Proposed Development with Commerce Drive Extension - Add the traffic
volumes that will be generated by the proposed development to the
redistributed existing traffic volumes. This scenario will consider a
Commerce Drive extension to 96th Street and will include direct access to the
proposed development via three Michigan Road access drives.
SCENARIO 3B: Proposed Development with Commerce Drive Extension (Limited Access) -
Add the traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development
to the redistributed existing traffic volumes. This scenario will include a
Commerce Drive extension to 96th Street and will consider all Michigan
Road access to be provided via the existing Retail Parkway only.
SCENARIO 4: Year 2014 Conditions - Project the existing traffic volumes ten years forward
using a 3 percent per year growth rate and add generated traffic volumes
from the development of near-by vacant land not including the generated
traffic volumes from the proposed development.
SCENARIO 5A: Year 2014 & Proposed Development without Commerce Drive Extension -
Add the traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development
to the year 2014 traffic volumes. This scenario will not consider a
Commerce Drive extension to 96th Street and will include direct access to the
proposed development via three Michigan Road access drives.
2
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SCENARIO 5B: Year 2014 & Proposed Development without Commerce Drive Extension
(Limited Access) - Add the traffic volumes that will be generated by the
proposed development to the year 2014 traffic volumes. This scenario will
not include a Commerce Drive extension to 96th Street and will consider all
Michigan Road access to be provided via the existing Retail Parkway only.
SCENARIO 6A: Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development with Commerce Drive
Extension - Add the traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed
development to the redistributed year 2014 traffic volumes. This scenario
will consider a Commerce Drive extension to 96th Street and will include
direct access to the proposed development via three Michigan Road access
drives.
SCENARIO 6B: Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development with Commerce Drive
Extension (Limited Access) - Add the traffic volumes that will be generated
by the proposed development to the redistributed year 2014 traffic volumes.
This scenario will include a Commerce Drive extension to 96th Street and
will consider all Michigan Road access to be provided via the existing Retail
Parkway only.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses, conclusions
and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through the study
area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development will be located along Michigan Road between 96th Street and I06th
Street in Cannel, Indiana. As proposed, the development will consist of approximately 502,000
square feet of retail land use. Figure 1 is an area map of the proposed development including the
proposed access points.
3
......-
LAND USE LEGEND
PARCEL LAND USE ITE CODE
V ACANT LAND
1 RESTAURANT 932
2 RETAIL 820
3 OFFICE 710
106TH ST.
EXISTING
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
~
()
I
Q
):>
L.
:n
';)
EXISTING
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
PROPOSED
SIGNALIZED ACCESS
..J
u...
a:::
v
o
I
'"
I
cD
o
1-
w
tf)
<(
!D
~
o
0.:
::>
tf)
I
::I:
X
W
N
V
o
v
o
/"
w
~
::>
o
I
N
V
o
v
o
/"
v
o
o
N
/"
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
Ci
CC
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
EXISTING
TRAmC SIGNAL · ~
~
~~
EXISTING
- TRAmC SIGNAL
FIGURE
1-465
SIZE
5,000 SF
45,000 SF
70,000 SF
AREA MAP
1
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
4
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
STUDY AREA
The study area defined for this analysis will include the following intersections:
. Michigan Road & 96th Street
. Michigan Road & I06th Street
. Michigan Road & Retail Parkway
. All Proposed Development Access Points Located Along Michigan Road
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes Michigan
Road, 96th Street, I06th Street and Commerce Drive.
Michigan Road - is a north-south five lane roadway from 1-465 to just south of I06th Street.
This roadway serves many commercial sites north of 1-465. The posted speed limit in the
vicinity of the proposed site is 45 mph.
96th Street - is an east-west arterial that serves residential and commercial sites along the
boundary of Marion County and Hamilton County.
I06th Street - is a two-lane roadway that serves many residential neighborhoods within Hamilton
County.
Commerce Drive - is a service drive that connects I06th Street to several commercial areas that
front Michigan Road.
Michigan Road & 96th Street - This intersection is currently controlled by an automatic traffic
signal. The existing intersection geometrics are illustrated on Figure 2.
Michigan Road & 106th Street - This intersection is currently controlled by an automatic traffic
signal. The existing intersection geometrics are illustrated on Figure 2.
Michigan Road & Retail Parkway - This intersection is currently controlled by an automatic
traffic signal. The existing intersection geometrics are illustrated on Figure 2.
5
-
t Q t
~
~
~
'+ ", S
96TH STREET ~
-t.
~ ~ 106TH STREET
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
,.
I I I I I
96TH STREET AND MICHIGAN ROAD
106TH STREET AND MICHIGAN ROAD
Q
~ I
ct
~
~ I
~
t
RETAIL PARKWA Y (TARGET MAIN DRIVE)
~
~
- - - -
I I
RETAIL PARKWA Y AND MICHIGAN ROAD
...J
....
~
v
o
I
.......
I"
to
o
Ii
~
o
~
::)
(/)
I
:r:
x
lLJ
N
V
o
v
o
"....
lLJ
~
::)
o
I
N
V
o
v
o
"....
v
o
o
N
"....
N
FIGURE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION
SCHEMA TICS
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
@A &. F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
6
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF FUTURE ROADWAY PROJECTS
The Indiana Department of Transportation has future plans to widen Michigan Road from 1 o 6th
Street to 121 st Street. As part of this project, Michigan Road will be widened to become a four-lane
roadway with a center lane left-turn lane. In addition, the signalized intersection of 106th Street and
Michigan Road will be reconstructed to include the following geometrics:
Northbound: One left-turn lane, two through lanes, one right-turn lane
Southbound: One left-turn lane, two through lanes, one right-turn lane
Eastbound: One left-turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane
Westbound: One left-turn lane, one through lane, one right-turn lane
This project is scheduled for letting later this year and according to INDOT, construction should
begin in 2005. Therefore, the year 2014 scenario and all development scenarios include the
roadway and intersection geometrics that will be constructed as part of the Indiana Department of
Transportation project.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made at each of the study
intersections by A&F Engineering Co., LLC. The traffic volume counts include an hourly total of
all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersection. The traffic volume counts were
made during the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM in April 2004. In addition,
a 48-hour traffic volume count w~s collected along Michigan Road in the vicinity of the proposed
development's north access drive. Computer output of the peak hour counts and the 48-hour counts
are included in Appendix A.
REDISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to determine the traffic impact due to the proposed Commerce Drive extension, the
existing traffic volumes must be redistributed. The proposed Commerce Drive extension would
connect 96th Street to 106th Street. Therefore, a portion of the existing traffic could use this
connection to by-pass Michigan Road. In addition, vehicles wishing to enter Target from the
southeast would have the opportunity to travel north on Commerce Drive from 96th Street to
enter Target. Therefore, a redistribution of existing traffic volumes was completed using traffic
data collected at the study intersections, at the Target driveways and traffic counts taken at 96th
Street and Shelborne Road and 106th Street & Shelbome Road. The total redistribution of the
existing background and existing Target traffic volumes is shown on Figure 3.
7
-'
"-
O:C
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
96TH ST.
...
o
I
r-
I
<D
o
~~ 1-465
~~
FIGURE 3
~
w
V1
<;(
p"
'-'
:;::
C>
G-
::J
V1
I
:r:
x
w
N
...
o
...
o
/'
w
:>:0
::J
o
I
N
...
o
...
o
/'
...
o
o
N
/'
N
TOT AL REDISTRIBUTED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
DUE TO COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
8
..
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the
development size and of the character of the land use. Trip Generation1 report was used to calculate
the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a
compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout
the United States in order to establish the average number of trips generated by various land uses.
Table 1 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
Retail 820 502,000 SF 251 161 872 944
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without using the roadway
system. Internal trips will occur within this retail center. These trips are taken into account within
the trip generation for a general retail development (ITE land use 820).
PAss-BY TRIPS
Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that are captured by the proposed
development. The pass-by trip equation in Trip Generation report was used to estimate the
reduction in trips for the proposed development. However, at the driveways to the proposed
development, 100 percent of the generated trips will be applied. Table 2 summarizes the pass-
by trip reductions for the proposed development.
TABLE 2 - GENERATED PASs-BY TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION . GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE I AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
Retail 820 502,000 SF 251 161 872 944
Non-Pass By Trips (75.7%) 190 122 660 715
Pass-By Trips (24.3%) 61 39 212 229
Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003.
9
--
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
NEAR-BY VACANT LAND
Vacant land that would utilize Retail Parkway and Commerce Drive currently exists near the
Proposed Development site. The location of these sites is shown on Figure 1 and Table 3 is a
trip generation summary for the land uses that will most likely occupy this vacant land. Trip
Generation report was used to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by the near-by
vacant land.
TABLE 3 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
PARCEL LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
1 Restaurant 932 5,000 SF 30 28 33 21
2 Retail 820 45,000 SF 59 38 177 192
3 General Office 710 70,000 SF 124 17 27 130
Pass-by and internal trip generation reductions are applied to the vacant land trip generation data.
These reductions are based on the formulae published within the ITE Trip Generation Handbook
and the resulting net trips are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4 -INTERNAL TRIP AND PASS-BY TRIP REDUCTIONS FOR NEAR-By VACANT LAND
DEVELOPMENT INFORM A TION GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
PARCEL LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
1 Restaurant 932 5,000 SF 30 28 33 21
Restaurant Internal Trips 6 6 7 4
Restaurant External Trips 24 22 26 17
2 Retail 820 45,000 SF 59 38 177 192
Retail Internal Trips 6 6 4 7
Retail External Trips 53 32 173 185
Retail Non Pass-By External Trips (50.9%) 27 16 88 94
Retail Pass-By External Trips (49.1 % ) 26 16 85 91
3 I General Office 710 I 70,000 SF Reductions Are Not Applied
PEAK HOUR
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak
hour varies between the intersections. Therefore, the actual peak hour at each intersection is
analyzed to represent the maximum traffic volumes at each intersection.
10
--
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
The study methodology used to detennine the traffic volumes, from the proposed development and
from the future development of vacant land, that will be added to the street system is defined as
follows:
1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the site must be assigned to the various access
points and to the public street system. Using the traffic volume data collected for this
analysis, traffic to and from the proposed new site has been assigned to the driveways and
to the public street system that will be serving the site.
2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the
generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their
intersection with the driveway. The distribution was based on the existing traffic patterns
and the assignment of generated traffic.
For this analysis, several different assignment and distribution scenarios were considered. The
assignment and distribution of generated traffic volumes from the proposed development for each
scenario are separated into pass-by and non pass-by trips and are shown on the following figures:
Figure 4A & 4B - Assignment & Distribution of Generated Non Pass-By & Pass-By Traffic
Volumes (Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan
Road Access)
Figure SA & SB - Assignment & Distribution of Generated Non Pass-By & Pass-By Traffic
Volumes (Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access
Provided Via Retail Parkway Only)
Figure 6A & 6B - Assignment & Distribution of Generated Non Pass-By & Pass-By Traffic
Volumes (With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road
Access)
Figure 7A & 7B - Assignment & Distri..bution of Generated Non Pass-By & Pass-By Traffic
Volumes (With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access
Provided Via Retail Parkway Only)
The assignment and distribution of generated traffic volumes from the vacant land are shown on
figures located in Appendix A.
11
-
-J
..
a::
-I:
~
,
106TH ST. \ ;,
3%-'
LEGEND
xx = INBOUND
[XX] = OUTBOUND
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
ct
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
"-39%
v
o
I
,....
I
(0
o
1-465
~
w
(/)
<:
ID
~~
· FIGURE
4A
II
'"
~
o
a..:
::::>
(/)
I
:J:
X
W
--- N
V
o
~
o
/"
w
~
::::>
o
I
N
~
o
~
o
/"
~
o
o
N
/"
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED NON PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A &. r Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
12
-'
'-'-
0:0
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
'" = NEGLIGIBLE
XX = INBOUND
[XX] = OUTBOUND
C)
C(
~
~
g
"'(
96TH ST.
...
o
I
r--
~~ 1-465
~~4B
I
<D
o
-
w
V)
<{
,CD
<..:J
:s:
a
a.:
:::>
V)
I
I
x
W
N
...
o
<t
?
w
'"
:::>
a
I
N
<t
o
<t
o
./
...
o
o
N
./
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A &: F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
13
,- <.:>
:;::
a
a.:
:::>
(f')
I
:r:
x
w
'"
....
o
....
9-
w
:>::
:::>
a
I
'"
....
o
....
o
/
....
o
o
'"
/
N
t
\
106TH ST. \ ~
3 %......
--'
.....
a::
1-465
LEGEND
xx = INBOUND
[XX] = OUTBOUND
'* = NEGLIGIBLE
C:1
ct
~
~
3
"'\
96TH ST.
......... 39%
13 %......
....
o
,2.
I
<D
o
'",
w
(f')
<(
fD
~~
o FIGURE SA
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED NON PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA
RETAil PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
14
106TH ST. \
..J
L-
a::
Ci
ct
~
~
g
"::(
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
XX = INBOUND
[XX] = OUTBOUND
96TH ST.
...
o
r!.
~~ 1-465
~~
o FIGURE 58
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA
RETAil PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
I
ill
o
N
w
U1
<{
fD
<.:)
;::
a
0-
:;)
U1
I
:r:
x
w
N
...
o
...
o
/'
w
::.<
:;)
a
I
N
...
o
...
o
/'
...
o
o
N
/'
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
15
...J
"-
0::
~
~
,
106TH ST. \ \
3 % .........
LEGEND
xx = INBOUND
[XX] = OUTBOUND
* = NEGLIGIBLE
C)
ex:
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
......... 39%
<.:)
;;::
o
a.:
::>
(f)
I
:r:
><
L.U
N
V
o
v
o
../
L.U
::.::
::>
o
I
N
V
o
'<t
o
../
'<t
o
o
N
../
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
\
"I-
~~ {-465
~~
o FIGURE 6A
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED NON PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
'<t
o
I
r--
I
<0
o
~
L.U
(f)
<{
po
@A &. F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
16
..J
.....
Q::
106TH ST. \
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
11< = NEGLIGIBLE
XX = INBOUND
[XX] = OUTBOUND
(j
CC
~
~
3
~
96TH ST.
....
o
.!..
I
<D
o
<..:)
3:
o
cL
::>
<f)
I
J:
x
UJ
N
....
o
....
o
./'
UJ
>.<
::>
<=>
I
N
....
o
....
o
./'
....
o
o
N
./'
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
~~ 1-465
~~
o FIGURE 68
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
'~
UJ
<f)
<(
,CD
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
17
~
-:R..
o
~~
~
~~
o FIGURE 7 A
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED NON PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA
RETAil PARKWAY ONLY)
@A &. F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
~
~
.,..
,
106TH ST \ 'i,
3%....
13%....
-'
u..
C>::
....
o
I
I"-
I
<D
o
N
w
(/)
<(
;n
<.:)
;;:::
a
~
::>
(/)
I
J:
x
W
N
....
o
...
o
./
w
>C
::>
a
I
N
...
o
....
o
./
...
o
o
N
./
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
18
LEGEND
xx = INBOUND
[XX] = OUTBOUND
* = NEGLIGIBLE
CJ
ex:
~
~
g
"(
96TH ST
~39%
1-465
-'
......
a::
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
XX = INBOUND
[XX] = OUTBOUND
C)
~
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
""
o
I
r---
I
<D
o
<.::>
s:
a
a..
::>
(/)
I
:r:
x
w
N
""
o
""
o
/'
w
""
::>
a
I
N
""
o
""
o
/'
""
o
o
N
/'
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
\\\~
~'
~~
o FIGURE 78
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA
RETAil PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
1-465
N
w
(/)
<(
,aJ
19
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared
for each of the proposed access points and for each of the study area intersections. The total (pass-
by and non pass-by) peak hour generated traffic volumes for each assignment and distribution
scenario are shown on the following figures:
Figure 8 - Total Generated Traffic Volumes (Without Commerce Drive Extension / With
Direct Michigan Road Access)
Figure 9 - Total Generated Traffic Volumes (Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan
Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway Only)
Figure 10 - Total Generated Traffic Volumes (With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct
Michigan Road Access)
Figure 11 - Total Generated Traffic Volumes (With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan
Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway Only)
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the future development of vacant land have
been prepared for each of the proposed access points and for each of the study area intersections.
The total (pass-by and non pass-by) peak hour vacant land generated traffic volumes for each
assignment and distribution scenario are shown figures shown in Appendix A.
The generated traffic volumes are based on the previously discussed trip generation data,
assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic.
20
-
....J
~
a::::
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
C)
~
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
v
o
I
,......
I"
CD
o
1-465
=..-
w
(/)
<(
fD
<..:>
~
o
a.:
::;)
(/)
I
::c
x
w
N
V
o
v
~
w
::.::
::;)
o
I
N
V
o
v
o
./'
v
o
o
N
./'
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
FIGURE 8
TOT AL GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
21
-
-oJ
I.&..
a:::
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
Ci
ex:
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
v
o
I
,......
I"
(D
o
_u~~
~~ 1-465
~~
FIGURE 9
TOTAL GENERA TED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA
RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
N
w
(/)
4:(
fD
1\
t:)
;t
o
~
~
(/)
I
:I:
X
W
N
v
o
v
o
/
w
~
~
o
I
N
v
o
v
o
/
v
o
o
N
/
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
22
-
...J
~
0::
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
(J
ex:
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
v
o
I
,.....
I
to
o
1-465
~
w
U')
<(
fD
<.:>
3:
o
~
:;:)
U')
I
:J:
X
w
~--~ N
V
o
v
o
./
w
~
:;:)
o
I
-~~ N
~
o
v
o
./
~
o
o
N
./
- N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
FIGURE 10
TOTAL GENERA TED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A & F Engineering Co.. LLC 2004
U ALL Rights Reservedtt
23
-
--J
I.&...
a:::
1-465
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
C)
CC
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
v
o
I
......
I"
tD
o
-N
W
(/)
<
fD
~
~
o
~
::>
(/)
I
:I:
X
W
N
V
o
v
o
/"
w
~
::>
o
I
N
V
o
v
o
/"
v
o
o
N
/"
N
FIGURE 11
TOTAL GENERA TED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA
RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
24
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analyses have been conducted in order to determine if a traffic signal would
be warranted at the intersection of Michigan Road and the proposed north access (if direct access to
Michigan Road is provided) with or without the proposed Commerce Drive extension. These
warrants are based on existing traffic volumes and the generated traffic volumes from the proposed
development. The following summarizes the data used for the warrant analyses.
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA
An existing 24-hour count was collected along Michigan Road in the vicinity of the proposed
access. Table 5 lists the existing 24-hour volumes and a computer printout of the traffic count
is shown in Appendix A.
TABLE 5 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES: MICHIGAN ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED
NORTII ACCESS
MICHIGAN ROAD
(NB) (SB) (NB+SB)
24-HOUR 14,296 14,101 28,397
VOLUME
GENERATED TRAFFIC DATA
The ITE Trip Generation Handbook was used to determine the 24-hour trips that the proposed
development will generate. Table 6 shows the 24-hour trip data.
TABLE 6 - 24-HoUR GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION 24-HOUR
ITE GENERATED
LAND USE CODE . SIZE TRIPS
Retail 820 502,000 SF 19,382
This 24-hour trip generation data was then assigned and distributed to the intersection according
to the assignments and distributions shown on Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 6A and Figure
6B. The distributed 24-hour generated traffic volumes are summarized in Table 7.
25
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 7 - GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES: MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED NORTII ACCESS
WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE
MICHIGAN ROAD PROPOSED
ACCESS
(NB) (SB) (NB+SB) (WB)
24-HOUR 1 , 168 1,447 2,615 6,852
VOLUME
WITH COMMERCE DRIVE
MICHIGAN ROAD PROPOSED
ACCESS
(NB) (SB) (NB+SB) (WB)
24-HOUR 508 . 1,300 1,808 5,165
VOLUME
Note: Volumes summarized in the tables above include internal traffic reductions and pass-by
traffic reductions.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CRITERIA
To qualify for the installation of a traffic signal, Criteria lA, Criteria 1B and/or Criteria 4 from
the Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD)2
must be met. These criteria include
Criteria 1A - Minimum Vehicular Volume - ADT Equivalent
Criteria 1B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic - ADT Equivalent
Criteria 4 - Pedestrian Volume
For the analyses, Criteria 1A and Criteria 1B were tested. The equivalent average daily traffic
volumes will be used for both criteria. According to the Indiana MUTCD, the volumes needed
for these criteria are the sum of both approaches along the major road and the sum of both
approaches along the minor road. Michigan Road is the major road at the intersection while the
proposed north access is the minor road. The sum of existing and generated traffic volumes are
summarized in Table 8. In order to determine if a traffic signal will be warranted, these
volumes are compared to the equivalent average daily traffic volumes required to meet either
Criteria 1A or Criteria lB.
2 Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Indiana
Department of Transportation, 2000
26
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 8 - SUM OF EXISTING AND GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES: MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED
NORTH ACCESS
WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE
MICHIGAN ROAD PROPOSED
ACCESS
(NB) (SB) (NB+SB) (WB)
24-HOUR 15,464 15,548 31,012 6,852
VOLUME
WITH COMMERCE DRIVE
MICHIGAN ROAD PROPOSED
ACCESS
(NB) (SB) (NB+SB) (WE)
24-HOUR 14,804 15,401 30,205 5,165
VOLUME
Note: Volumes summarized in the tables above include internal traffic reductions and pass-by
traffic reductions.
CRITERIA lA AND 1 B
The following pages show a step-wise breakdown of Criteria 1A and Criteria 1B for the
intersection in question.
MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Date:
Qualifiers:
School Crossing
Existing Signal
Isolated Community under 10,000
Rural Criteria Applicable
Speed on Major Street
40 MPH Speed Exceeded Criteria Applicable
5-4-04
No
No
No
N/A
45 mph
N/A
MICHIGAN ROAD:
Major Street 2- Lane Approach
PROPOSED ACCESS:
Minor Street L Lane Approach
27
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
WITHOUT COMMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION
CRITERIA lA - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
Required Volume
MICHIGAN ROAD 10,000
PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS 6,000
Requirement: V olumes must be met on both the major and minor street.
Criteria lA is met.
CRITERIA IB - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
Required Volume
MICHIGAN ROAD 15,000
PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS 3,100
Requirement: Volumes must be met on both the major and minor street.
Criteria IB is met.
WITH COMMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION
CRITERIA lA - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
Required Volume
MICHIGAN ROAD 10,000
PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS 6,000
Requirement: Volumes must be met on both the major and minor street.
Criteria lA is not met.
CRITERIA IB - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
Required Volume
MICHIGAN ROAD 15,000
PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS 3,100
Requirement: V olumes must be met on both the major and minor street.
Criteria IB is met.
28
Volume Met
YES
YES
Volume Met
YES
YES
V olume Met
YES
NO
Volume Met
YES
YES
...
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
An annual growth rate has been calculated based on year 1993 traffic volumes and the existing 2004
traffic volumes. For this analysis a growth rate of 3% per year will be used for all traffic
movements at 96th Street, 106th Street and Michigan Road. This growth rate will account for traffic
increases due to the development of vacant land outside of the study area.
YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To evaluate the future impact of this development on the public roadway system, the existing traffic
volumes must be projected forward to a design year and the traffic volumes from the near-by vacant
land must be considered. The design year used for this project will be year 2014. The year 2014
projected traffic volumes are shown later in this report on Figure 18. These volumes were
calculated using the 3% per year growth rate and the generated traffic volumes form the near-by
vacant land. However, these volumes do not include the generated traffic from the proposed
development nor do they include the proposed extension of Commerce Drive.
REDISTRIBUTION OF YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
As described earlier, the Commerce Drive extension will have an impact on existing and future
traffic patterns within the study area. Thus, a redistribution of traffic is needed to account for
potential changes in future traffic volumes. The redistributed year 2014 traffic volume are shown
on Figure 12. These volumes include the traffic generated by the near-by vacant land and from the
existing Target.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level-of-Service (LOS) of the intersection. The
LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data
into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes
and, in the case of signalized intersections, !raffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each
of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer
program Synchro3. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and optimized
using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM/,
3 Synchro 6.0, Trafficware, 2003.
4 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 2000.
29
-
~
u...
a::
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
Ci
ct:
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
v
o
I
,....
'I
CD
o
1-465
N
W
(/)
c(
fD
<.:>
~
o
a.:
~
(/)
I
:I:
x
W
N
V
o
~
o
./'"
w
~
~
o
I
N
~
o
~
o
./'"
~
o
o
N
./'"
N
FIGURE 12
REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2014
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION)
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
30
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROGRESSION ANALYSIS
Progression is maintained when a platoon of vehicles can travel along a segment of a major
roadway without having to stop at each intersection. A warrant analysis has shown that when the
traffic from the proposed development is added to the roadway network, a traffic signal will be
warranted at the intersection of Michigan Road with or without the proposed Commerce Drive
extension. Therefore, for all development scenarios, this traffic signal was considered and
analyzed as part of a coordinated signal system that included the traffic signals at 96th Street,
Retail Parkway and 106th Street. The recognized computer program Synchro was used to
analyze the study intersections as a coordinated system.
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following descriptions are for signalized intersections:
Level of Service A - describes operations with a very low delay, less than or equal to 10.0
seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable,
and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not
stop at all.
Level of Service B - describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per
vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression. More vehicles stop
than LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Level of Service C - describes operation with delay in the range of 20.1 seconds to 35.0
seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from failed
progression. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
Level of Service D - describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per
vehicle. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combinations of
unfavorable progression. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles not stopping declines.
Level of Service E - describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per
vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high
delay values generally indicate poor progression and long cycle lengths.
Level of Service F - describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle.
This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
31
-...~-
--- .---------------
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersections:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Less than or equal to 10
Between 10.1 and 15
Between 15.1 and 25
Between 25.1 and 35
Between 35.1 and 50
greater than 50
Level of Service
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the traffic volumes
from each of the various parts must be added together to form a series of scenarios that can be
analyzed. The analysis of these scenarios determines the adequacy of the existing roadway
system. From the analysis, recommendations can be made to improve the public street system so
it will accommodate the increased traffic volumes.
An analysis has been made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study
intersections for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the traffic volumes that were collected
in April 2004. Figure 13 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study
intersections.
SCENARIO 2A: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic
Volumes (Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road
Access) - Figure 14 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study
intersections for the peak hour.
SCENARIO 2B: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic
Volum'es (Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access
Provided Via Retail Parkway Only) - Figure 15 is a summary of these traffic
volumes at the study il}tersections for the peak hour.
SCENARIO 3A: Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated
Traffic Volumes (With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan
Road Access) - Figure 16 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study
intersections for the peak hour.
SCENARIO 3B: Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated
Traffic Volumes (With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access
Provided Via Retail Parkway Only) - Figure 17 is a summary of these traffic
volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour.
32
-
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SCENARIO 4: Year 2014 Traffic Volumes - The existing traffic volumes projected ten years
forward using a 3 percent per year growth rate added to the generated traffic
from near-by vacant land not including the generated traffic volumes from
the proposed development. The before mentioned Figure 18 is a summary
of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour.
SCENARIO 5A: Year 2014 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic
Volumes (Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road
Access) - Figure 19 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study
intersections for the peak hour.
SCENARIO 5B: Year 2014 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic
Volumes (Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access
Provided Via Retail Parkway Only) - Figure 20 is a summary of these traffic
volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour.
SCENARIO 6A: Redistributed Year 2014 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development
Generated Traffic Volumes (With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct
Michigan Road Access) - Figure 21 is a summary of these traffic volumes at
the study intersections for the peak hour.
SCENARIO 6B: Redistributed Year 2014 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development
Generated Traffic Volumes (With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan
Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway Only) - Figure 22 is a summary
of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour.
The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of
service results are included in Appendix A. The tables that are included in this report are a
summary of the results of the level of service analyses and are identified as follows:
Table 9 - Michigan Road & 96th Street
Table 10 - Michigan Road & l06th Street
Table 11 - Michigan Road & Retail Parkway
Table 12 - Michigan Road & Proposed North Access
33
-
...J
u...
a:::
Ci
ex:
~
~
g
~
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
96TH ST.
'"it'
o
I
......
"I
to
o
~~
~~ 1-465
~~
FIGURE 13
N
I.&J
(/)
<(
fD
Ii
~
~
o
cL
=>
(/)
I
I
X
lLJ
N
'"it'
o
'"it'
~
I.&J
::.::
=>
o
I
N
'"it'
o
'"it'
o
/'
'"it'
o
o
N
/'
N
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
@A & F Engineering CO.t LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
34
-
v
o
I
,.....
I
~
o
106TH ST.
96TH ST.
.....J
~
a:::
c.....
.......
(/)
<{
fD
<..:>
~
o
a.:
::>
U)
,
::r:
x
-- .......
N
V
o
v
o
/'
.......
~
::>
o
I
N
V
o
v
o
/'
v
o
o
N
/'
N
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
(t
~
~
g
~
1-465
FIGURE 14
SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC
VOLUMES & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
tt ALL Rights Reserved"
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
35
-
- N
w
(/)
<(
ED
....J
l.L.
a:::
15
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
C)
a:
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
v
o
I
,.....
"I
to
o
~~
~~
o FIGURE
1-465
<.:>
~
o
a.:
::>
(/')
I
:I:
X
W
N
V
o
v
~
w
~
::>
o
I
N
V
o
v
o
./'
v
o
o
N
./'
N
SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC
VOLUMES & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED
VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A c!c F Engineering Co., llC 2004
"All Rights Reserved"
36
FIGURE 16
SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A & F Engineering CO.t LLC 2004
tt ALL Rights Reservedu
-
-J
u...
Q::
106TH ST.
96TH ST.
v
o
I
.....
I
to
o
~
w
(/)
4:
[D
<.:>
~
o
a.:
::>
(/)
I
~
X
W
N
v
o
v
o
./'"
w
~
::>
o
I
N
V
o
V
o
./'"
v
o
o
N
/'"
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
37
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
~
~
~
g
~
1-465
...
~
~
0::
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
Ci
ct
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
v
o
I
.....
I
CD
o
o
~
o
a.:
:::>
U')
I
:I:
X
w
- N
V
o
v
~
w
~
:::>
o
I
N
V
o
v
o
/'
v
o
o
N
/'
N
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
(~~
~~ /-465
~~
· FIGURE 17
SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED
VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
N
I.&J
U')
<(
fD
38
...
-J
L....
a::
106TH ST.
96TH ST.
v
o
I
,....
I
(0
o
~
w
en
<(
fD
Ii
<-'
~
o
a.:
::>
en
I
J:
X
W
N
V
o
~
o
/"
w
~
::>
o
I
N
~
o
v
o
/"
v
o
o
N
/"
N
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
Ci
Q:
~
~
g
~
1-465
FIGURE 18
YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION)
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
39
@A & F Engineering Co.. LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
I ~
~
0
~
,
:3
I '-
w
~
<
,00
"
I !>
0
"'
0
~
,
I
I ::1
~
..
3-
w
~
0
0
I .!.
~
..
3-
~
0
~
/
I N
RI
106TH ST.
'to 67 (127)
'-169 (172)
.. 507 (272)
~~~
d'~~
~.fl Vi
'-:;-~Vi
",<-'C/
JJ
LEGEND
00 = A,M, PEAK HOUR
(00) = P,M. PEAK HOUR
. = NEGLIGIBLE
Ci
0:
~
~
3
'<:(
96TH ST.
/~~
~ 1-465
~~
FIGURE 19
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
SUM OF YEAR 2014
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
I ~
0
~
,
~
0
I N
w
~
<
,m
""
I \?
0
a:
~
~
,
~
x
I i<j
~
0
~
C
x
~
0
I "
~
0
~
;3-
~
0
0
~
I N
AI
106TH ST
'l. 67 (127)
... 169 (172)
.507 (272)
\ ~
cO..:o~
<>"' ~
~ r-,r>
~d>~
<> <-' C/
JJ
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
. = NEGLIGIBLE
(:j
0:
~
~
3
<:(
96TH ST
~~
~.\ ------=::::::: 1-465
~~E 20
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
SUM OF YEAR 2014
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED
VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I ~
.
0
~
,
:g
I '-
w
~
<
,m
"
I ~
~
0
a:
~
~
,
.
x
I i'>i
.
0
.
0
f
~
0
I ~
3-
.
0
0
N
/
IN
AI
106TH ST
~~
~S-::::..-
~4c-1
'-"~~
o""!~"'"
J\~
(91) 261"
(275) 100 ~
(201) 95 +
\ ('
c!S-4~
o~...-::-
~ '"
~-o B-
o~
:::::..-::::,..
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
. = NEGLIGIBLE
~
98TH ST ~
~ ,J11' Sf I ~
\~3
oq:
96TH ST
1-465
r'
';a..;;
~::/S
::::.-'3
"''''
~\~
(213) 961"
(332) 168~
(575) 337 +
FIGURE 21
SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2014
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A &: r Engineedng Co., llC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
I =
:
l
o
I ~
.~
I ~
"
~
~
,
~
~
I!
w
~
~
o
Ii
~
o
o
N
/"
I N
AI
106TH ST
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
= NEGLIGIBLE
(::j
ex::
~
~
3
'<(
96TH ST
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
~~ 1-465
~~
FIGURE 22
SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2014
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED
VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
43
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 9 - MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH STREET
I
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 SA SB 6A 6B
Northbound Annroach C C C C C D D D D D
Southbound ADDfoach C D D D D E E F E D
Eastbound Annroach C C C C C D D C D D
Westbound Aooroach D D 0 D D E E F E E
Intersection C C C D D E E E E E
AM PEAK HOUR
I
I
I
I
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 SA SB 6A 6B
Northbound ADDfoach D F F E E F F F F F
Southbound Annroach C E E D D D F F D D
Eastbound Annroach D F E E E E F F F F
Westbound Aooroach E F E D D F F F F F
Intersection D E E D D F F F F F
PM PEAK HOUR
I
I
I
Descriotion of Scenarios
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes
SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway
Only)
SCENARIO 3A: Sum of Redistributed Existing & Proposed Development Traftic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 3B: Sum of Redistributed Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway Only)
SCENARIO 4: Year 2014 Traffic Volumes - Does Not Include Proposed Development
SCENARIO SA: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 5B: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Develnpment Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway
Only)
SCENARIO 6A: Sum of Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 6B: Sum of Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway Only)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Notes
. AU scenarios were analyzed with the existing traffic signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
. Scenarios 2, 3, 5 and 6 included this signal as part of a coordinated signal system.
I
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 10 - MICHIGAN ROAD & I06TH STREET
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5A 5B 6A 6B
Northbound Approach B A A A A C C A B C
Southbound Approach D C C B B D E D D D
Eastbound Approach B C C C C D E D E E
Westbound Approach D C C C C D D F D D
Intersection D C C B B D D D D D
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
I 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5A 5B 6A 6B
Northbound Approach D B A B A D C C C B
Southbound Approach C C C C C C D D C D
Eastbound Approach D D D D E E F F F E
Westbound Approach D D D C D E E E D E
Intersection C C C C C D D D D D
Notes
. A description of scenarios is listed on the following page.
. Scenario 1 was analyzed with the existing traffic signal control and the existing intersection
geometries.
. INDOT has future pJans to begin reconstructing this intersection within the year 2005 in
conjunction with the widening of Michigan Road. Therefore, scenarios 2 through 6 were
analyzed with the existing traffic signal control and the following intersection geometries as
planned by INDOT:
Northbound: One left-turn lane, two through lanes, one right-turn Jane
Southbound: One left-turn lane, two through lanes, one right-turn lane
Eastbound: One left-turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane
Westbound: One left-turn lane, one through lane, one right-turn lane
. Scenarios 2, 3, 5 and 6 included this signaJ as part of a coordinated signal system.
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Description of Scenarios
SCENARIO I: Existing Traffic Volumes
SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via
Retail Parkway Only)
SCENARIO 3A: Sum of Redistributed Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 3B: Sum of Redistributed Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
SCENARIO 4: Year 2014 Traffic Volumes - Does Not Include Proposed Development
SCENARIO SA: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO SB: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via
Retail Parkway Only)
SCENARIO 6A: Sum of Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 6B: Sum of Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
46
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
I
TABLE 11 - MICHIGAN ROAD & RETAIL PARKWAY
I
AM PEAK HOUR
I
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
I 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5A 5B 6A 6B
Northbound Approach A A A A A A A A A A
Southbound Approach A A A A A A A A A A
Eastbound Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 E E
Westbound Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 E E
Intersection A A A A A A A A A A
I
I
PM PEAK HOUR
I
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
I 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5A 5B 6A 6B
Northbound Approach A A F A 0 B A F A F
Southbound Approach A B F A 0 A C F B E
Eastbound Approach 0 E E 0 E E E E E E
Westbound Approach 0 0 C 0 0 E 0 F 0 0
Intersection A B F A 0 B C F B E
I
I
I
DescriDtion of Scenarios
SCENARtO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes
SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARtO 2B: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension J Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway
Only)
SCENARIO 3A: Sum of Redistributed Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 3B: Sum of Redistributed Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway Only)
SCENARIO 4: Year 2014 Traffic Volumes - Docs Not Include Proposed Development
SCENARIO 5A: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 5B: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway
Only)
SCENARtO 6A: Sum of Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARI06B: Sum of Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail Parkway Only)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Notes
. All scenarios were analyzed with the existing traffic signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
. Scenarios 2, 3, 5 and 6 included this signal as part of a coordinated signal system.
I
I
47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 12 - MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
2 3 5 6
Northbound Approach A A A A
Southbound Approach A A A A
Eastbound Approach D D E E
Westbound Approach D D E E
Intersection A A A A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
2 3 5 6
Northbound Approach B B E B
Southbound Approach B A C B
Eastbound Approach E D E E
Westbound Approach D D D D
Intersection C B D B
Description of Scenarios
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
SCENARIO 6: Sum of Redistributed Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Notes
. All scenarios were analyzed with the proposed traffic signal control and the proposed
intersection geometries that include the following:
1. The addition of a northbound right-turn lane along Michigan Road that extends
back through the middle and south access points. A recovery taper is also
proposed at the north access drive.
2. It is proposed that the southbound left-turn along Michigan Road have a turn bay
storage length no less than 300 feet with a 100 foot taper.
3. The proposed access constructed with two left-turn lanes and a shared
through/right-turn lane for outbound traffic and at least one lane for inbound
traffic.
. All scenarios included this signal as part of a coordinated signal system.
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTlON
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment
and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have
been prepared for each of the study intersections, and the field review conducted at the site. These
conclusions apply only to the AM peak hour and PM peak hour that were addressed in this analysis.
These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the resulting level
of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed the remaining 22 hours
will have levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the existing street traffic volumes
will be less during the other 22 hours.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
A warrant analysis has shown that a traffic signal will most Jikely be warranted at the
intersection of Michigan Road and the proposed north access when the traffic volumes from the
proposed deveJopment are added to the roadway network. The signal is warranted with or
without the proposed Commerce Drive extension. Therefore, a traffic signal installation request
for the proposed north access should be made to the Indiana Department of Transportation in
conjunction with the development of the proposed site.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
I. MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH STREET
Scenario I Analysis:
Scenario I Results:
Existing Traffic Volumes
This intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service
during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometrics.
Scenario 2A Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 2A Results: This intersection will operate at level of service "C" during the AM
peak hour and "E" during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometrics.
Scenario 2B Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 2B Results: This intersection will operate at leveJ of service "C" during the AM
peak hour and "E" during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometrics.
49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Scenario 3A Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 3A Results: This intersection will operate at level of service "D" during the AM
peak hour and "D" during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 3B Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 3B Results: This intersection will operate at level of service "D" during the AM
peak hour and "D" during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 4 Analysis:
Scenario 4 Results:
Year 20]4 Traffic Volumes -Does Not Include Proposed Development
This intersection will operate at level of service "E" during the AM
peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 5A Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 5A Results: This intersection will continue to operate at level of service "E" during
the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour with the existing
traffic signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 5B Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 5B Results: This intersection wil1 continue to operate at level of service "E" during
the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour with the existing
traffic signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 6A Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 6A Resu1ts: This intersection will continue to operate at level of service "E" during
the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour with the existing
traffic signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 6B Ana1ysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 6B Results: This intersection will continue to operate at level of service "E" during
the AM peak hour and "P" during the PM peak hour with the existing
traffic signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
2. MICHIGAN ROAD & 106TH STREET
Scenario I Analysis:
Scenario I Results:
Existing Traffic Volumes
This intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service
during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 2A Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 2A Results: INDOT has future plans to begin reconstructing this intersection
within the year 2005 in conjunction with the widening of Michigan
Road. This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the following intersection geometries as planned by INDOT:
. Northbound: One left-turn lane, two through lanes, one right-turn lane
. Southbound: One left-turn lane, two through lanes, one right-turn Jane
. Eastbound: One left-turn lane, one shared through/right-turn Jane
. Westbound: One left-turn Jane, one through lane, one right-turn lane
Scenario 2B Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 2B Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the intersection geometries listed in Scenario 2A as planned by
INDOT.
Scenario 3A Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 3A Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the intersection geometries listed in Scenario 2A as planned by
INDOT.
Scenario 3B Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce" Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 3B Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the intersection geometries listed in Scenario 2A as planned by
INDOT.
Scenario 4 Analysis:
Scenario 4 Results:
Year 2014 Traffic Volumes -Does Not Include Proposed Development
This intersection wil1 continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the intersection geometries listed in Scenario 2A as planned by
INDOT.
51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Scenario 5A Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 5A Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the intersection geometries listed in Scenario 2A as planned by
INDOT.
Scenario 5B Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 5B Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the intersection geometries listed in Scenario 2A as planned by
INDOT.
Scenario 6A Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic V o]umes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 6A Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the intersection geometries listed in Scenario 2A as planned by
INDOT.
Scenario 6B Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 6B Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the intersection geometries listed in Scenario 2A as planned by
INDOT.
3. MICHIGAN ROAD & RETAIL PARKWAY
Scenario I Analysis:
Scenario] Results:
Existing Traffic Volumes
This intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service
during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 2A Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 2A Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 2B Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 2B Results: This intersection will operate at level of service "A" during the AM
peak hour and "P" during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
52
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Scenario 3A Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 3A Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 3B Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 3B Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal oontrol
and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 4 Analysis:
Scenario 4 Results:
Year 2014 Traffic Volumes -Does Not Include Proposed Development
This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario SA Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario SA Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario SB Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario SB Results: This intersection will operate at level of service "A" during the AM
peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 6A Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 6A Results: This intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during the peak hours with the existing traffic signal control
and the existing intersection geometries.
Scenario 6B Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I Michigan Road Access Provided Via Retail
Parkway Only)
Scenario 6B Results: This intersection will operate at level of service "A" during the AM
peak hour and "E" during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic
signal control and the existing intersection geometries.
53
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED NORTII ACCESS
Scenario 2 Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 2 Results: This intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the
AM peak hour and PM peak hour with the proposed traffic signal
control and the proposed intersection geometrics that include the
following:
. The addition of a northbound right-turn lane along Michigan Road that extends
back through the middle and south access points. A recovery taper is also
proposed at the north access drive.
. It is proposed that the southbound left-turn lane along Michigan Road have a turn
bay storage length no less than 300 feet with a 100 foot taper.
. The proposed access constructed with two left-turn lanes and a shared
through/right-turn lane for outbound traffic and at least one lane for inbound
traffic.
Scenario 3 Analysis: Sum of Existing & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension I With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 3 Results: This intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the
peak hours with the proposed traffic signal control and the proposed
intersection geometrics listed in Scenario 2A.
Scenario 5 Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(Without Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 5 Results: This intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the
peak hours with the proposed traffic signal control and the proposed
intersection geometrics listed in Scenario 2A.
Scenario 6 Analysis: Sum of Year 2014 & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
(With Commerce Drive Extension / With Direct Michigan Road Access)
Scenario 6 Results: This intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the
peak hours with the proposed traffic signal control and the proposed
intersection geometrics listed in Scenario 2A.
5. MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS
This access is proposed as a right-in/right-out access. A right-turn lane should be constructed
along Michigan Road to serve vehicles entering this drive.
6. MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED SOUTII ACCESS
This access is proposed as a right-in/right-out access. A right-turn lane should be constructed
along Michigan Road to serve vehicles entering this drive.
54
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to ensure that
the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed.
COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION
Traffic projections and level of service calculations have shown that the proposed extension of
Commerce Drive would have a positive impact on traffic operations along Michigan Road by
providing an alternate route to access the existing Target development and any new
development that might occur east of Michigan Road between 96th Street and 106th Street. In
addition, it is anticipated that a traffic signal would most likely not be warranted in the near
future at the intersection of 96th Street and Commerce Drive if the extension was constructed.
However, the intersection should be continually monitored as near-by development is
constructed and additional traffic is added.
MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH S1REET
When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing
traffic volumes, this intersection wil1 operate at level of service "D" or better during the peak
hours with the proposed Commerce Drive extension. However, when a growth rate is applied to
the existing traffic volumes in order to obtain year 2014 traffic volumes, this intersection will
operate at level of service "F" during the PM peak hour. Therefore, this intersection will
operate below acceptable levels of service in the future due to traffic growth unrelated to the
development of the proposed site.
MICHIGAN ROAD & J 06TH S1REET
The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) has future plans to begin reconstructing
this intersection within the year 2005 in conjunction with the widening of Michigan Road.
According to INDOT, this signalized intersection will be reconstructed to include the foJ1owing
geometries:
. Northbound: One left-turn lane, two through Janes, one right-turn lane
. Southbound: One left-turn lane, two through lanes, one right-turn lane
. Eastbound: One left-turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane
. Westbound: One left-turn lane, one through lane, one right-turn lane
I
I
I
I
The existing traffic signal control and the intersection geometries planned by INDOT will
adequately serve the year 20J4 traffic as well as the additional traffic generated by the proposed
site, with or without the proposed Commerce Drive extension. Therefore, no improvements are
necessary at this intersection above and beyond those planned by INDOT.
55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MrCffiGAN ROAD & RETAIL P ARKWA Y
If access from the proposed site to Michigan Road is limited to Retail Parkway only, the
intersection of Michigan Road and Retail Parkway will operate at level of service HE" or worse
during the PM peak hour with the existing traffic signal control and the existing intersection
geometrics when considering the year 2014 traffic as well as the additional traffic generated by
the proposed site. This occurs with or without the proposed Commerce Drive.
However, if the proposed site has direct access onto Michigan Road, the existing traffic signal
control and the existing intersection geometrics at Michigan Road and Retail Parkway will
adequately serve the year 2014 traffic as well as the additional traffic generated by the proposed
site, with or without the proposed Commerce Drive extension.
Therefore, the existing traffic signal control and the existing intersection geometrics wiJ]
adequately serve the year 2014 traffic as well as the additional traffic generated by the proposed
site if direct access from the site to Michigan Road is provided. This occurs with or without the
proposed Commerce Drive.
MrCffiGAN ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS POINTS
Proposed Traffic Signal - A warrant analysis has shown that a traffic signal wi1l most likely be
warranted at the intersection of Michigan Road and the proposed north access when the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the roadway network. The signal is
warranted with or without the proposed Commerce Dri ve extension. Therefore, a traffic signal
installation request for the proposed north access should be made to the Indiana Department of
Transportation in conjunction with the development of the proposed site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If a traffic signal is installed at the north access, it is recommended that the middle and south
access drives be controlled as right-inJright-out only. This will allow left-turn movements in
and out of the site to be perfonned only at the signalized north access drive, thus creating a safe
and efficient controlled condition for left-turn vehicles entering and exiting the site.
Proposed North Access - The following intersection conditions are recommended with or
without the proposed Commerce Drive extension:
. A traffic signal control.
. The addition of a northbound right-turn lane along Michigan Road that extends back
through the middle and south access points. A recovery taper is also proposed at the
north access drive.
. It is recommended that the southbound left-turn along Michigan Road have a turn bay
storage length no less than 300 feet with a 100 foot taper.
. The proposed access constructed with two left-turn lanes and a shared through/right-
turn lane for outbound traffic and at least one lane for inbound traffic.
56
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proposed Middle Access - The folJowing intersection conditions are recommended with or
without the proposed Commerce Drive extension:
. It is recommended to construct this access as a right -in/right-out access with one
outbound lane and one inbound lane.
. The addition of a northbound right-turn lane along Michigan Road that extends back
through the south access point.
Proposed South Access - The folJowing intersection conditions are recommended with or
without the proposed Commerce Drive extension:
. It is recommended to construct this access as a right-in/right-out access with one
outbound lane and one inbound lane.
. The addition of a northbound right-turn lane along Michigan Road that begins 100
feet south of the access and extends north through the middle access to the north
access drive.
57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the
proposed development.
Included is the intersection turning movement traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity
analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
DUKE CONSTRUCTlON
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH STREET................................................... ........................... ........ ................ ....................... .... ...1
MICHIGAN ROAD & 1 06TH STREET................................................. ....... ........................................... ...................... ....... 25
MICHIGAN ROAD & RETAIL PARKWAy......................................... ............................. ....... .............. .............. ........ .......49
MICHIGAN ROAD & NORTH ACCESS DRIVE ................................... ................................... .................................... ....... 73
ADDITIONAL FIGURES ....... ................... ....................... ................................................................................................. 82
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
AND
CAPACITY ANALYSES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH STREET
APRIL 15, 2004
PEAK HOUR DATA
AM PEAK OFF PEAK PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 7,15 AM HR BEGIN 4,45 PM
L T R TOT L T R TOT L T R TOT
405 904 285 1594 286 1190 888 2364
45 128 259 432 88 252 442 782
45 1089 47 1181 110 1007 48 1165
642 187 87 916 354 93 75 522
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 1121 644 1765 171 511 682 2447
7- 8 1511 1187 2698 389 896 1285 3983
8- 9 1506 914 2420 424 690 1114 3534
- PM -
4- 5 1906 1071 2977 601 588 1189 4166
5- 6 2308 1107 3415 722 522 1244 4659
6- 7 1480 802 2282 370 438 808 3090
TOTAL 9832 5725 15557 2677 3645 6322 21879
44.9% 26.2% 71.1% 12.2% 16.7% 28.9% 100.0%
- AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 438 329 122 258
HOUR 1594 1187 457 916
PHF 0.91 0.90 0.94 0.89
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 636 323 220 151
HOUR 2364 1165 782 588
PHF 0.93 0.90 0.89 0.97
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH STREET
APRIL 15, 2004
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 223 31 254 610 53 663 197 7 204 1030 91 1121
7- 8 363 24 387 775 77 852 264 8 272 1402 109 1511
8- 9 308 59 367 733 98 831 285 23 308 1326 180 1506
PM
4- 5 247 37 284 956 51 1007 605 10 615 1808 98 1906
5- 6 221 28 249 1121 42 1163 892 4 896 2234 74 2308
6- 7 169 11 180 810 34 844 449 7 456 1428 52 1480
PASSENGER 1531 5005 2692 9228
89.0% 93.4% 97.9% 93.9%
TRUCK 190 355 59 604
11.0% 6.6% 2.1% 6.1%
BOTH 1721 5360 2751 9832
17.5% 54.5% 28.0% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 11 14 25 45 7 52 66 28 94 122 49 171
7- 8 29 8 37 109 8 117 189 46 235 327 62 389
8- 9 44 11 55 121 12 133 190 46 236 355 69 424
PM
4- 5 75 9 84 180 11 191 298 28 326 553 48 601
5- 6 70 8 78 234 4 238 388 18 406 692 30 722
6- 7 43 4 47 102 1 103 205 15 220 350 20 370
PASSENGER 272 791 1336 2399
83.4% 94.8% 88.1% 89.6%
TRUCK 54 43 181 278
16.6% 5.2% 11.9% 10.4%
BOTH 326 834 1517 2677
12.2% 31.2% 56.7% 100.0%
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN ROAD & 96TH STREET
APRIL 15, 2004
SOUTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 20 0 20 556 36 592 24 8 32 600 44 644
7- 8 43 2 45 1020 77 1097 40 5 45 1103 84 1187
8- 9 47 5 52 723 92 815 41 6 47 811 103 914
PM
4- 5 72 2 74 858 62 920 71 6 77 1001 70 1071
5- 6 112 0 112 914 48 962 31 2 33 1057 50 1107
6- 7 58 1 59 668 42 710 27 6 33 753 49 802
PASSENGER 352 4739 234 5325
97.2% 93.0% 87.6% 93.0%
TRUCK 10 357 33 400
2.8% 7.0% 12.4% 7.0%
BOTH 362 5096 267 5725
6.3% 89.0% 4.7% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 341 6 347 105 5 110 51 3 54 497 14 511
7- 8 627 14 641 170 8 178 74 3 77 871 25 896
8- 9 463 14 477 117 8 125 83 5 88 663 27 690
PM
4- 5 384 10 394 104 10 114 74 6 80 562 26 588
5- 6 345 4 349 100 0 100 73 0 73 518 4 522
6- 7 296 7 303 73 1 74 59 2 61 428 10 438
PASSENGER 2456 669 414 3539
97.8% 95.4% 95.6% 97.1%
TRUCK 55 32 19 106
2.2% 4.6% 4.4% 2.9%
BOTH 2511 701 433 3645
68.9% 19.2% 11.9% 100.0%
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S1 - Existing Traffic
6/24/2004
-
-
~-~
HCM Average Control Delay 35.0 HCM Level of Service C
flIeM~~QI~mf;!ltoICooaci!;: ratio,'0;7;9 . ~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.1 Sum of lost time (s)
'nt!frSe;ctI9Dl~~1Wtili~tiOr;l:I~66!5~CW,!l2'eveJI0f" ervice, ,. '~__
Analysis Period (min) 15
!111~!!ti~lt~aije~GlQijp' "
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S 1 - Existing Traffic
6/24/2004
/' -. ..- '-"" t I" \.!./
~_tII~-----
Lane Configurations " t 7'7' "" t 7' "" ttt 7' " tift.
~~iIj~Bniill~ :900~:90Q '1:900: 19.00'. ~:900 1900, l' 00: 1909 4900'~:909'. 1.9{J0' 1:900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
ahe~!!IttL ,EIlClO~ ' " 1. . 0: , '1hOO '. Or88' '0:7",,,1..00 . 1~00' .0.9'i10.9J1'1,00" 1.00. 0186_
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
~~tgCJ~1;~00BO!95~
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6011
~tt~_.0!95~~90!il0!\l5~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6011
mrWi&vmD~8~_'!f21JJ1.3:5mJ11i[~1i11'1.~"~~
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~.!;low~B!:! .98" 280491 393' 103:',83.318 ~322 98'Zi". 1:22 dr~ 19 ~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 0 0 69 0 0 271 0 8 0
~Gr:QjJpjijl&WJf(YRiij~98J'ii1!~280~4;Z5_39S.:;;'10S_:i1:4~3:~8.1S22r.z..1:.6~~r1'22!:i~1j1194111mO
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot
2rotectea~l'ia$~$ 'iI. . .!I>.,... 5 ~3 .' .5 '. .1
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
~Qt1)})te:CJ1GJ"6"et\!I@I(~22!4~'2!'2m1;~3:1~6~
Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 12.1 24.4 9.2 13.2 13.2 12.3 32.6 32.6 6.6 26.9
~qt\'1a~0!111~1o!tl:2moIJ1;7~a~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
N:etli9leJl;5(tei'is1QIij'($)~tS!O~!1]S!QIM3m~sTo.&iIBmQ_sfoR3]j.\;mQ!:m3io_sro~is!Q_
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 177 278 977 390 304 258 521 2047 637 144 2114
'ilsJli1atto!~OJO:6\1!cO!~q011[2~p10:t~
vis Ratio Perm 0.10 0.01 c0.48
mF,l~!0;1J1r~~QI$BQIQp~iQ'65~
Uniform Delay, d1 32.5 32.2 21.0 33.6 27.8 26.4 29.9 17.4 21.9 34.5 19.9
~ro ressiOr'liH'actor \1.00 '1,OQ' '1,00' 1;.00 . ',00, . 1,,00;. :1,00' J1.00'1~00 m1,,00' 1.;00.
Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 55.8 0.4 47.5 0.7 0.1 2.1 1.6 74.6 34.4 1.0
~1@~~~32!0)~8fi!1ll~1rQ_
Level of Service D F C FCC C B F E C
~p.Rrbacl'i Del.a j.@ , 1t4.5' . ,. , .' .~ ~Pi'64,0 " 49y7' .25z5
Approach LOS D E D C
~1m.
HCM Average Control Delay 44.6 HCM Level of Service D
HreMiVoli.Jme!tol$ap'actty ratio .... 1.05:'
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
'n1er&ectiQQ\(;)IlPap~J,lJJtillZaii~~!3WoI'~fjSel;j1ic~~_~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~$i:iti61!li!fanelGroup_~'~,
m
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S2A
6/24/2004
/_~ ~-,~ t ~\.+.;
-.......~~_....
Lane Configurations 'I t 7'7' '1'1 t 7' '1'1 ttt 7' 'I !tIt.
jQ~1!'IiIQW!!~1'900.Ig:o.Q)I1;~Q_~~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
~~[iJlil!l~~~0197.~0!97~O:~
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
ITh!iIliei5t~~!{00!1[0195~1[o.(1.~1[~~
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6002
~I6itt][d~1f&:Q~:gJIJ95~1Ioe~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6002
Sii5l1ijme~(~7:0. i\T2a'259' ,642:.1'87: ,,161.,'10592'7< . 285, 92 "Cr089
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~. filoW ',In iZ8 ,: :1'4-2" '288 713, 208 117 10se i,31i7. '1102'12'10'
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 10 0 0 124 0 0 214 0 9 0
JrE![i!lGrguli!1!i!9:WI(ypn)."\\78~,,~1:42B278liE~74113in'!l!2aalB,s5~46a1Alcasa_tOs_1.o2ill[27j,1_0
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot
Bfoteo1ooIP,a:$Ss ' ,,'1. ;" 4" " 3:'" 5 '1,
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
~ii~ti:J(j~~~~15!P~~~.2010_
Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 14.0 30.0 21.0 27.0 27.0 16.0 28.7 28.7 8.3 21.0
~p!\~19~lli1at~~ ,', 0.S.1 iiJi0.3,1, "O~180,33!, '(};S3 ,0.090,24
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
M.~I:1!9I111I;i(teD$icrr\I'(S)~~10~3!al:rJl;3(0"3ja~:I.'I13:aIiA3!a~~S!a"~!QI.31oJ!li!.3'alL~.:!3]O~
LaneGrp Cap (vph) 152 280 1017 774 540 459 589 1566 488 158 1432
~~1J;11!tiQ?'R1Q1~~:ai05~Qa!22i:~.It!;!c0~1~~Jl:ca!2~_
vis Ratio Perm 0.06 0.04 0.07
~F;!~ttQ~~~a!51~,'JiIIO!27~0!9~at';!2.0!i76.0166~
Uniform Delay. d1 38.1 33.8 21.1 32.7 24.0 21.9 34.2 25.4 21.5 38.4 32.4
IJlliigee$~(9BlliactQr~~qO.1100.~(qo~
Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 1.4 0.1 16.3 0.5 0.1 5.9 2.2 1.0 7.6 7.5
IDelaY1(~~411f!,1!!!:ri35!3$~~T'!k'];2~~~27~6~
Level of Service D D C D C C D C C D C
!?!p.RrDach.li!.elay,,@ " ,'+28!2~' ~,. . 39!9~29i8 35A
Approach LOS C D C D
.
HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service
liIe~k)Zoli.fme1to!,$apaci~'I'atIQ', It, 0:80 ' "
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.0 Sum of lost time (s)
li:1t~r$~,ctiorn!eaRac~IDilmi91i~f36!8f1,,!~:~rGtJml1[~I!2frS.eiYice
Analysis Period (min) 15
~ermcaljU'aoelGroJ!R '}, '
, "",,',
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S2A
6/24/2004
-
-
~.
HCM Average Control Delay 79.6 HCM Level of Service E
f[et;/l~'lqlJ.!ri]e!tQICaeacity"ratidJ!!i. . . >1!23'iP' 'I&~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 121.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
rmJers~Ption1eap':acl!YIi11fm~fi6h~!iJ%~!'~~1I[~1!i;!:v.~irQtiS~1;YIi;~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
EIrereisailtraneEGroul2
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S2B
6/24/2004
.J- -+"')..,.- '-~ t I'" \. + ~
~Ii~_~~
Lane Configurations,!'" "'f' '1'1 t ." '1'1 tH ." 'I Ittfo
~(~lm!~~~~0.~9oo.19QQ~II1~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
lane I1!til.<J.C'lo':' ~.ao 1k'GOQ;B8: ',' 0,91: .'1.00}.,1~00,' 0:91:: .0.9~, . 1,.OO"d.(10 .0:.136
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
glti~roteCt~ 0:95 1.0.0 " i1~00,'o;95 1.00~ UP '0.95,' ,11:('10 ,1~ao 0:95', ~.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6002
rn!!!C~0!95~"I~~oa.1'!OJ)1.~OP.Q!Q~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6002
~ ' " M ,17:028. 59," '6'12f8'7; 161 '1105 9271 85 ,92 11Ws9'
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~j~~n Vi8,' 142288':, '7i13!~208 ',,1!'h9' 'I5a .1030 ,3i1m' 10.' ,1:21fO, '
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 10 0 0 124 0 0 214 0 9 0
!!~!i1~lGr()Lipl~lo~1(YPh)lIfJiIt:z.8.1Ii!~2J1Ei2:z.8~7fjff;!I~'!i1208_M55EJ:J:~45!)Jf~1Qf;!oIfil;10f;!i!'r:'E:,102.12:z:'i_Q
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot
Brote,cted: t:iasas "hI 4' '5" ,,3, . 5 ,1.,
Permitted Pt:iases 4 8 2
~f3lli~t!!:g[G'r~eriJ%Gl(~~~~?~
Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 14.0 30.0 21.0 27.0 27.0 16.0 28.7 28.7 8.3 21.0
~'l!tUaG3argl,e.ie~Q!c!!:j.0~16~~pj~~.0!09_0!2~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
~!'iiQle!t;j{jel:1i$iC!Q!($)r~.3IoNf;!IO~f;!1Q~f;!!.o.'1:t3!O_f;!!OJlll~f;!!O_:f;!!0:I..f;!!oi&f;!IQ~f;!!Q_
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 152 280 1017 774 540 459 589 1566 488 158 1432
~~0105~4'EQ!Q~ljj!Q!Q9JitcO!22:ij;iI!OI,1:2!i1J1B.!D80!,1_Q!2i1IJ?~O!06~II'SO!2~_
vis Ratio Perm 0.06 0.04 0.07
Wlfi11'1ti~O!5~JIIls0!51~~'iliO!f;!9~~O!2p~_~
Uniform Delay, d1 38.1 33.8 21.1 32.7 24.0 21.9 34.2 25.4 21.5 38.4 32.4
~'9!~:S$iQ'm.F;'fiptq~i\m1!OO~~1~Oa~1!C!0~1!QO~~OO!lt~J22RQ!8.!f_
Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 1.4 0.1 16.3 0.5 0.1 5.9 2.2 La 7.5 7.3
D,ela~(~ ,,!Ii" '11.1:", '35,3,,,,21:.2. '1'1819" 24.'1'22:\1.. ','I0:i1-"'.27r:6 22r5', 42~h, 3'1!6,
Level of Service D D C D C C D C C D C
~IlRro'acQ1ID,glaYl(ID , . 28i2 '3~.9, $ ;29,8 . '35"t .
Approach LOS C D C D
I
HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service C
ImGM~'<<QI~l'ife}t9fJii~t:1acit'l1ratio~80~;(1af~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Inter$~cti()iiiieagac~jltJtilizatio~6618i'1~i~!~fl!eVelt9fISgl;Vicg' ,€I ','.
Analysis Period (min) 15
~~hliailelGEQ1JR' " '.'
'"
:ii:-'
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S2B
6/28/2004
-+
+-
1:Q~~t~~~.1IiIIIIIIII
HCM Average Control Delay 79.3 HCM Level of Service E
.ft.~MKolumeitoiCaRa()j!y/ra\J(j .... .... 1223 . ,~: ~. .;ow' . :. -: :. ," Jii~~i!1r,". .N'...... ., c'''' ....,
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.0 Sum of lost time (s)
!5itersectiQnt~ai:1ai:ji!YJ"'n)fi~atioD_99!8?/~iIIII!iI!I[el!1g!!:gy'el"~gr.vj~e .,.
Analysis Period (min) 15
!2116ritical!t!~q~I}>1(jiJR .
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S3A
6/24/2004
-+
+-
~~~~
HCM Average Control Delay 35.7 HCM Level of Service D
)il0Ml'Z5Iumeito~eal2aGi..rati5 '~2',':.~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
!1!t~~e(;UQQ'1~aBaC!!Y1tiltili~ti~lYf~I!Q!m~o/ic\t';: .... .!to ,'-
Analysis Period (min) 15
~t:itic:aYIJ!s\!le!GrOUJ2 . ,.
.._~:. . ~.. ." . .""$' ..' 1O?~~"i!E'x..kW"" . .....
" ., . ~ ;; ',"'. % '16i'it;p~A <tt83;:m;;qm ":AI' ii4' '.' ,
" '.' z::fJ' .,,', . .~""*,,,',",;W~.~boi.'0 " -. . "
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S3A
6/28/2004
--" -+"'). ~-,~ t /" \. +./
R:_~_~_~~.!I~!iJ~J"fli'litlm~~~_~J;!!IIII!m\I
Lane Configurations 'I t t' '1'1 t 7' '1'1 ttt ." 'I tttf+
Ipeaililow)fl:! j:90!). ~.OOl'}. .~900.90... j'90l'}' ~'900.J900'1'900~.1900 .j~'''~:ge~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
'aMnlil,&' eta!; . ~..OO .j..OO'. 0:8!:!, 0.:97,i! ",1;00 't~oo(91) .~~
Frt ~ .00 1.00 0.85 ~ .00 1.00 0.85 ~ .00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98
lilti~rotect~. 0:95 J)O t~OO .'0, 5JhOO ~.tn000J95.' .",~OO '.~!!00'0:95 .t,mo
Satd. Flow (prot) ~671 1759 2632 3242 ~759 1495 3242 4803 ~495 ~671 5946
~0!9J5m__~
Satd. Flow (perm) ~67~ ~759 2632 3242 ~759 ~495 3242 4803 1495 ~67~ 5946
~lUm~~Brj) '1n 1.. 255 . 2a889~[I?JJIIf!JW~
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~J. fii!ow' \II 19 ,23 '~91 431 109 , 318'" 1'3'130 '~067!l t,o . ,1.84 . ti5
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 9~ 0 0 336 0 2~ 0
~.lltilo_283_~IJ_~"'t01~3;~~"~@Qo!III;~3,11t.~:7,.\l.,t3j~19_Q
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot
E'fgtecte:a)"PJlI(
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
~"Ct(fa~[<3It~!~~)~~O" 46:0~.f..4..9,.o, 40.j~
Effective Green, g (s) ~7.9 16.2 32.~ ~9.8 ~8.1 18.~ ~5.9 47.0 47.0 10.0 41.~
7,l;diJate!:l!!1)' atia Q~ts '.0.1.5 . 0,29 :0;1:8. o,llZ' .Oi,j/iI',. .0J;~:5,OA3,. 0{43. .O!09;~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
~e!1j!::IE1I~t~Qs(i!)!!1(s)_3!O!!I!!IIQfO~!(ftl!lll~_~IQ"3mJII!l!3fO~~.lJl(3!O_~3!Q;!I!J113~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 274 261 872 589 292 248 473 2071 645 153 2242
YZsfc6atiQ:l'Lr9. . , .0 U 'cO 16. ,08 cO~ 'a 0;06'OM.g. .~' . .... cOttO,' .0,2
vis Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.49
~ C . atl" 0!69 , . ~j,08, 0,51 . 01?7>3 0:3 <:H3!1i ,1~" ,~f!tl!t .a:5!;!'
Uniform Delay, d1 43.0 46.4 32.0 42.1 40.3 38.4 44.1 24.4 31.0 49.5 27.2
~g~~]Q'fiIi!a:m:Qf~~~~]JJI!III
Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 80.0 0.5 4.7 0.7 0.1 3.7 1.5 78.4 103.8 1.1
IEte]aYl(ID~38l~m1.Ql:1~23~1~
Level of Service D F C D D D D C F F C
~li!l1rQa(jh., eJay&~) ..s3r6 ".',11-.4." .', ."6jw,;:1.~
Approach LOS E D E D
~!!!J~11I1~\!~i1!!..
HCM Average Control Delay 53.8 HCM Level of Service D
ljJ0M~'\[QUmejtoleal1aclt\! ratio" '~,03' .d". " ." . 'wi
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.0 Sum of lost time (s)
Elt~sgG.tiODJ:0~Ri!c!!Y.IJj~t!l!~atig~~JI.!!evefffif"~eLYjse, .,..%!.
Analysis Period (mln) 15
c'f1iii10riticald!Me. GrOUI'!
16.0
. ,1;;..
"
....&4!!1!'~~'!!i!~
'imAlt". ,,,,," ~ ' %'~", "1ffi1iL~~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S3B
6/24/2004
..J- _ ""t ~ - '-.... t ,.. \. ~ .;
r!t![~_JiiIII~i~~r..__~~~~
Lane Configurations , t "'r' " t ." "ttt ." 'tttfo
l8eal!1ii10!&l(~J:!fi1'Jt.' . ~~'OO(iJ 90 ~90o j .00 '~.OOO. '~OOOi' 1.900' '~OO(iJ .~[~~
Total Lost time (s) 4.(iJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
I!a:ne.' IiL.EIa:etpp '~i'o. +.0(iJ 0,88 .0:9'7i'. ~,O ~..OO. '0!97:' 'Ol9,1 ,HjO~WO'b 0,86'
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
_rn(@L~~Q~~O.1)_
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6001
~immj!i~;95
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6001
M,oJUme'1(\!ifj . 69'i!:'2 .' 59~3, 11f;!1. 8'li 1105"896 ,"8,6 .,,38. n998,'
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~~1lP~1{I'_J.SIII2:!!_~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 8 0 0 64 0 0 237 0 10 0
!r!f(!~~tq:(j~!~(Yl>!ii_7#Z._'~~@Q.81tJ!:_?1f?_~J;~~9!IJ~.~1i1~411IWr6$_Q
Turn Type Prot prn+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot
;.rote!:l'aal~ as 1t 3 .5 .' 1,
Permitted Phases
~ctTIa'edRGreEfr'1G fID
Effective Green, g (s)
~.i!!illm~F,!anQ.'.. .
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
1i;teliijQI~~'!>J:i$jQm(~)_1II~Jg"~rQ_;3r()_3t()_3IO~r()"!:!IoIill!f,3iP1I.3jQ_3!O_i3.j.Q~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 145 288 1 037 839 590 501 595 1554 484 110 1236
~O!Q5.~~(!O!a5~~
vis Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02 0.08
~.{~OJ,?~.O~27_~'I!tIIII
Uniform Delay, d1 37.1 32.4 20.0 31.2 21.4 19.2 32.9 24.5 21.0 38.0 33.3
~res$i~tl'\!_~.m~mlli2.!!.'-~~~
Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 1.3 0.1 23.9 0.4 0.1 5.5 2.0 1.1 2.0 14.0
~elaYl@ .... .: 40.8' 3.'I! '120.., :ti,,1' "2j,i''lJ .9;3 " 8,4 . '26.6 .2~,.?"~
Level of Service D C C E C B D C C D D
mr~~i~~T
HCM Average Control Delay 36.1 HCM Level of Service D
Iill5Mnvrt0', 't '0 "",..t'" .0"82 ,. .' . . . """""__~FI'_
gsl4.i.iliivJJume;,()l'a-eaCI~,;raIO, ,'1 'ifR'3?};i"~ ""L$W;~;~~,,""',' ';TV~>a~~~~~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
)n'ets:e'jjti.Qi'\!0aRiiq!!y1,\9~~68!0~l.iIIitjD\!I~i!f.i~et{of!Se!;Yl,<~ 6
Analysis Period (min) 15
~J!.!ijDri!L~J!lli!.heJ>rOlle .
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co.. LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S3B
6/28/2004
/' -. ~- '-'" t!" \.. J. ~
~~~_~~~a~![~~af,jIfl$f3t_~a1[.~\i!fi\
Lane Configurations 'I t 7'7' '1'1 t 7' '1'1 ttt 7' 'I !tit.
~!q~t(~JJm)~O ~QO ,900' ~900 ~:900~900 ,'\lOOO ' ooO:9Q(h~ :~900:::~:9~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0
~4l!Jtit1\i"'actQt. , '. . . '~~00~1!fOQ 0!88 ,'m9'i'J " ~,oo. :~,:OO. 0.9 0;9,1 1~00v .'.~mQ::O:86'
Frt ~ .00 ~ .00 0.85 ~ .00 ~ .00 0,85 ~ ,00 1.00 0,85 ~ ,00 0.98
~O!~~~
Satd. Flow (prot) 167~ 1759 2632 3242 ~759 ~495 3242 4803 ~495 167~ 5946
~~OO~
Satd. Flow (perm) ~ 67~ ~ 759 2632 3242 ~ 759 ~ 495 3242 4803 1495 ~ 67~ 5946
~I!~~ll), :~iZ~ 00 ' 3 ,8 ',9. ' :9 = 286J . ~~:9i7i '96'0' ~~.066'Ii!B:fu1'i!.O
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
alaJo'Wi(.Y~283..~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 56 0 0 90 0 0 336 0 ~ 8 0
l.E'g:rj~!~to)JP1~loWllYP!:\)IIII.t90_283~~s_4@j/_1.0~_1i!1lJDll3~L8.':t~30_'li(3JilliilWA1i1.322l11!1:lIo
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Pro!
.co!i3Gte.ARl1ases 7:. , 11. ,'55' ::1: '
Permitted Phases 4
~tuat€d:Gt~eli1':(G:@ 35m
Effective Green, g (s) 20.9 20.5 37.8 23.5 23.~ 23.~ ~7.3 6~.0 6~.0 13.0 56.7
lfG!j;(a\E;qi\Jk~JIi);i~01it'3_0!{6~__
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
w"I1':nEXC _..A~( ':)"'''-''''''''3:0'''-3r0]01-3iO-!3!0''''''!'3'0~''''3rO_3,0'_'''3'0""'::2I3'0-:3'0-!I13'0-1Ie"-
L~~<Jp,g"_n~__E~.Il~JQDA $ -~.<f_.:t~.".~___~i#'&)!1%&L'~_"~_MA~0:,,_~--,tI:i?ATIm:__~_~\$W$,__~_,,~i_m~_}~&_~*_"'__~"I'I!_ ,'__.w!?JM:~ .~_n"'~~.
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 261 269 821 569 303 258 4~9 2186 681 162 2516
~~tigIPwmJ~j;m:GO!!~~~~~0!~.'0~
vis Ratio Perm 0.1 0 O.O~ c0.49
!\I'lC'ffi<} 10 : '." ,,01713, :", ~.;Q5' ,'0.53 OIU"'qhOn~j05F .0.53. "
Uniform Delay, d~ 53.8 56.8 40.6 52.5 48.8 46.5 56.3 27.5 36.5 60.5 28.7
f,1rom:~~$IQ(I!I;'~tRi~~OJ}~~
Incremental Delay, d2 9.7 69.2 0.6 5.7 0.7 O. ~ 7.7 ~.3 56.1 8~.2 0.7
WE!iaYJ'<~ ' 63:6 '1..25.9 . '4,:",.2 '58!3119:5 6,'6., rOM' 2 .8' .9.246' t48"1!!iii", 25',6'%, . .
Level of Service E F D E D D E C F F C
~t1roacfl!lDelaY.!.@. '7:0,5' 51h9, 58,0 "
Approach LOS E D E D
~n~~qti]ijl11~
HCM Average Control Delay 54.9 HCM Level of Service D
~MKVoIOmj,!!to~€:aRaJ:iI~lratio' ~,' 1,,* 11,,00 : ;"illd0'F.~
Actuated Cycle length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost time (5) 16.0
Inter$ecti5n,Cajfaci!Yll!Jtiliz~9~T3W./ifllB.)el!JI~~f!S~]j1j~~
Analysis Period (min) ~ 5
[ii[€niIcaJIU!~ne$.G:mlJe!v.-~j :H.. >.
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S4 - Year 2014 Traffic
6/28/2004
.,.,. -"'). (""- '-,\ t I' '>.!';
"__~~"IiDIi~~~,\\iIB_!itJi!~~~IIm:~gJJII(~$.Iii]!
Lane Configurations " t ."." "" t ." "" ttt ." "ttlr.
mealililp~!2!!B! ~190!il . 1QOO,'.1'ooO . ~900* ;laQ 900.Hooo ~OOQ WOOO 1900' ~9!i!0;
Total Lost time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
~ani! fJlti.:E"aClpr'" '., ' -, .;:00'. :0,88 !i!,9Z ,~FO~~OO m9Z" 0.91: .~ 1;.00 . ..!i!!i! 0!86
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
~fl[t~~~~
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6!i!11
~ittel1~~OO~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6!i!11
f,\t6turoJfwlll .iVt3 16 ~'IJ 0042 '52 52'IJ 123" 31 . 7l,.(!f2~
Peak-hour lactor, PHF 0.90 0.90 !i!.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
,'_.OWl'Y 8.1 "8 7l4'-92j;....'K!i! '.69 861:669 41'. '.86'-.'5'"k9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 8 0 0 111 0 0 251 0 5 0
~~o'Y;tltVplji)~8!'\_'i!\1t_Q!16_Q2[_I'271!!!_'!jj\q.l'!_5_86I111t3f;>9_1.!J1_&f:).tf:)t!/i.-.O
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot
!J:rQ~jE> jRl'las~s1 . = . '7l ' .. - 4'5 .3. . ..!5 .
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
. ~~C!I~t11'~~<al(~)~~6!0~5G!0.~50i()~
EfJective Green, 9 (s) 10.0 17.4 40.4 37.0 44.4 44.4 23.0 51.0 51.0 9.0 37.0
~G'iJ'!:;l(eSirgz0:;Batid' . :0;08.: 01;1'3 OF31 0!28 0,34. '0'34 0.18/ Oj39 0,3~t:; :94P'lA .0!2&'>.
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
~eQi9!e1~tE>Q$Lo.b1($)_3!Q_3!!iI_3!0_3:9i1113.joaa3.!Q.,_31QI.J!!iliIII;'!:Q~!9_3'[O.~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 128 235 815 920 599 509 572 1878 585 115 1706
~1e1P'(Qt~!\1~
vis Ratio Perrn 0.06 0.04 0.11
!i'IC1Satip 0,63 01'(,8... ~45' . ~1 1,!i!2- '01;;<:3 0128
Uniforrn Delay, d1 58.4 54.7 36.1 46.7 33.5 29.5 53.7 33.8 27.1 59.6 46.1
p.r.9g!l[~i2.TIJ~if~tOO~
Incremental Delay, d2 9.8 15.5 0.4 31.5 0.5 0.1 44.0 2.5 1.2 23.0 15.1
lDelaY.i.@', ....68,2.. 71),2'. .31;1,5.' 7:8.21 '341". 29ia..'9ili!t7.' .3613 .;28~~
Level 01 Service E E D E C C F D C F E
~WR(~1!9!:i!l2le@y.i. ~s;50,2 . 63.5: 50!\1' . . "~.6a}a"
Approach LOS D E D E
1~~~~t~umi!!!!:I~~~
HCM Average Control Delay 56.6 HCM Level of Service E
1SI€r\AlV()flJrnehto,e"~Y.ii@6":2iJ .,!i)J96 :~'". ~ . '.ill ,~ ."
Actuated Cycle Length (5) 130.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
I1'iters~ctionl@aRaci!Yk.~ajjon: ..'82H5?/d -: '.. ;~'IClU l!eVel of SetVlGe ""8 : ': ',.. ".
Analysis Period (min) 15
~erijical.I!arie.GrbtJ~" . .' 0\
~ ~~~~~~~~
Baseline
A & FEngineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S4 - Year 2014 Traffic
6/28/2004
-+
+-
1I~'i'!>!q~~?;
HCM Average Control Delay 103.0 HCM Level of Service F
HGM~'ilolumektmeaRacilY.lLC\!io:rJj..~ 1,36. .' ... .
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
ffii~rs-eqtfQJtlcarlac!!Yi(!JtiliZa!io~!O~2~dj~~lel!Jil!evi:1lrQf~S~r&i[eP=-\lm_1Zf~1I1fi!41!mE~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~,\er;!ical[I!:a.m;rGrQUp..
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
SSA
6/25/2004
..J -~.f"+- '-,\ t I" \.. ~.;
~~mlIi~~r;Ii\1_:~~~~1RJI~~T_~l\1
Lane Configurations 'I t 7'7' '1'1 t 7' '1'1 ttt 7' 'I ttI'f>
1J:\[aI~ffJQwf(~JjB!r. ~:QOO. .1900' '1900'4900:. 90 )~<900 .900: 1900j.90J~,j'900 ~,900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
I! Q~!I!J.tj.t ,actor, "~t.OO.' ~~OO 0:88, .Q,97,* ..1,001';00 ~Oi9J1!i Q:91.. ~[OO .' 1.;00 Oj86.:
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
"Broteclea~.. . .Q195 . ",1..00 . 'Q;95 '" 1'-00 ,1,,00 0;9. ';0.. .',0' 0'9;0'0'
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6002
lli!JBg[ti'iitte:a_Oj95Ji~t~~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1759 2632 3242 1759 1495 3242 4803 1495 1671 6002
~, .98' .,66 '33 '1!i!83't.. ~3 226 2. . '255' 1'211j 1'424
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~-
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 7 0 0 175 0 0 248 0 7 0
JZ:<!J)$'4G.r(jJ1pJliill:\wj(,1ij;1tj)JIIIIt!.Q9.11it8~:lm.367&!11'192'll1112K()JI.i&fi",~J3J3m.139l!iiIIIiI.!'3.i1B11.3.8Rtg,9,\!;tls!S1!i!!'''''Y
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot
J1i1:' ect~a'BIJa.s~s.'t. "''5 'j' :.3 _',
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
~Qt!@t.1i~j"gi3~~~~~o_
Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 16.3 40.0 36.0 38.7 38.7 23.7 45.3 45.3 13.4 35.0
~cluateQ!9Z$i:8atip " '.. ",0,.1::1 c' ~0!\1: . ,,0,3;1;' ".0.,28., :0~30' mao:. ,0;1.9. 01a6 '0136.' .0,,:1 '. .0,28 '
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
~!:\i(;I~!@en1!iQlli~)_3!Q_3to_3'Q.&!II'I3'O.13.I~31()1!!!L3]()_3!alll..3!O_{[;O~!Q~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 179 226 912 919 536 456 605 1713 533 176 1654
!7L~8~tiQlBLQ.I~~~1Pllo1'b8!!iJrc~QI29~6'0!28_
vis Ratio Perm 0.06 0.05 0.11
,c . at!o' ,'0,1Ij0- .':1W1k .:GI5G "0,1" '0:13;' 0 wBi
Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 53.9 34.1 45.5 36.3 32.3 51.3 37.0 29.5 55.4 46.0
~gm~@.Q!;1!Fr.~~19.Q_
Incremental Delay, d2 5.8 19.7 0.3 31.8 0.7 0.2 28.5 4.4 1.5 15.5 20.6
~j/i(~ ' .;,,59,9 __ ;3,5~ .",3W!':,,; . ,137;.oL ;. 32:5 !k9;8 41"'1:' '31'.!iI fZ6;'t. 6 ,5
Level of Service E E C D C E D C E E
~J;!roac jtD,e.la.yt@1K.. j' ' . ~49,4 " 0~ . r'RA~'tg,!O" 65,41 .
Approach LOS D D E
11m~~Q]~I!!i!!
HCM Average Control Delay 56.7 HCM Level of Service E
IjJ(i;M~Wjli1Jme~f010aj:;facit~'ratio- . .019,714'1 'oo '..
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 127.0 Sum of lost time (s)
~em1anr~lfaci!Yllt!tiliz,;tiOr\"'i-'82:9~~~11iI!!.[\1I.l!!e\tel.of.SeMc~ ....
Analysis Period (min) 15
~eriticaljlra.:DejG{ohR. .:
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
17
I PM PEAK S5A
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road 6/25/2004
I
.J- - '- \. ./
-
I
~90'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page ~
I 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S5B
6/28/2004
-
-
",I'QPO
~IRI!.
HCM Average Control Delay 76.6 HCM Level of Service E
!i!q>MtIYQllJi'O~torfiT<1~J!y~4,~wP ..
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
If:}tersec(iom,eapac!!Yll[tjli~i\ti9Q~!9f~:'~uffii "j([t1ill!eVelfollServlce.'
Analysis Period (min) 15
c~J.entlc;ali~afl~lG.rdOe
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S5B
6/25/2004
-
-
M
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S6A
6/25/2004
.,J-
-
-
~.
HCM Average Control Delay 57.6 HCM Level of Service E
~f5I\Jm~~t$I<i;"mS>\jr"tiQ' - -, m9.9,-. -" C..' .. .... ii! . . H' .....__
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
!!ID€Jrsi"Gtioo!~~Gi!y!\!!!i!i'@tlOi'j_'iifi8~~~@!l!1e..vellQ!f~~'ll'll!J1!Ji5IJ...;;ij;:~",,~~~+tr__~
Analysis Period (min) 15
PD~<tall\!''''QelqrQU~..
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S6A
6/25/2004
-
-+-
8 2
~6;O' .!i~
59.0 59.0 11.0 48.6
.Qr~~~
1~1~1~)g1li~.
HCM Average Control Delay 113.3 HCM Level of Service F
IifCM1\VotiIme\to'GapacitVtratio ';;48, ~'. ~ . .N.. .. .. . .' ',. JZ!'~!i<""v_""
,), '~.h" ,~d,.A~.""" . J.. ;:ij!~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 121.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
rnte~cti("nlCa~txH!lti]zatlon ~,4?!Q .'3ifJ. ieJililL!l:!,v.~tiP\fS~i~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~G.riti~illi1!ne~<3rOl:Jp.,' d
"~"*",W"
MM .' =.. ..
,. =.' ",., . ~
~""'." 4,-
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S6B
6/25/2004
-
+-
I-
E
^"<\^~~-
16.0
HCM Average Control Delay 56.5 HCM Level of Service
l)IeM~\\olume1toles!p_<!gjtwratIP~ 0199. ~%.
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 133.0 Sum of lost time (s)
l11!ersa6t101[cill'2ijcitYll!\ti/i~tIPD~8~!6~~rVice'
Analysis Period (min) 15
~~mc~l~l1enelGrOW? c"
"$. GE"
. .
1i!I1IIm0~ . _~r ..' .
~ SF' ,,", ,~ "', ~" , '-
~. ; , ' , .- ~ 3.:. '~'.. ,.. '.
",.' Wi"., q'~:;;$r :B
"',
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
3: 96th Street & Michigan Road
S6B
6/25/2004
-
-
2
..;U~~12,0.6~~Q_
77.0 77.0 13.0 65.0
.ccQj5.1....~J5!5]j.!!..O~
;-J~~~~~~~
Baseline
A & FEngineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MICHIGAN ROAD & l06TH STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
AND
CAPACITY ANALYSES
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN ROAD & 106TH STREET
APRIL 13, 2004
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
PEAK HOUR DATA
AM PEAK OFF PEAK PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 7,15 AM HR BEGIN 4,30 PM
L T R TOT L T R TOT L T R TOT
79 424 94 597 62 887 248 1197
20 74 68 162 70 207 139 416
72 803 25 900 87 491 10 588
379 130 51 560 173 131 94 398
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 451 645 1096 45 251 296 1392
7- 8 583 923 1506 151 530 681 2187
8- 9 620 699 1319 154 432 586 1905
- PM -
4- 5 997 565 1562 309 405 714 2276
5- 6 1208 587 1795 390 373 763 2558
6- 7 863 513 1376 175 307 482 1858
TOTAL 4722 3932 8654 1224 2298 3522 12176
38.8% 32.3% 71.1% 10.1% 18.9% 28.9% 100.0%
- AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 162 273 66 154
HOUR 626 923 177 560
PHF 0.97 0.85 0.67 0.91
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 342 170 147 104
HOUR 1208 592 420 413
PHF 0.88 0.87 0.71 0.99
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN ROAD & 106TH STREET
APRIL 13, 2004
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 74 5 79 277 41 318 49 5 54 400 51 451
7- 8 72 4 76 367 49 416 76 15 91 515 68 583
8- 9 67 16 83 332 99 431 89 17 106 488 132 620
PM
4- 5 62 5 67 714 32 746 179 5 184 955 42 997
5- 6 56 10 66 847 23 870 270 2 272 1173 35 1208
6- 7 47 9 56 616 15 631 176 0 176 839 24 863
PASSENGER 378 3153 839 4370
88.5%- 92.4% 95.0% 92.5%-
TRUCK 49 259 44 352
11.5% 7.6% 5.0% 7.5%
BOTH 427 3412 883 4722
9.0% 72'.3% 18.7%- 100.0%-
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 5 0 5 19 2 21 14 5 19 38 7 45
7- 8 10 10 20 62 9 71 41 19 60 113 38 151
8- 9 13 4 17 61 2 63 56 18 74 130 24 154
PM
4- 5 50 2 52 150 2 152 100 5 105 300 9 309
5- 6 70 2 72 196 0 196 119 3 122 385 5 390
6- 7 22 3 25 93 3 96 53 1 54 168 7 175
PASSENGER 170 581 383 1134
89.0%- 97.0%- 88.2% 92.6%-
TRUCK 21 18 51 90
11.0% 3.0% 11.8%- 7.4%
BOTH 191 599 434 1224
15.6%- 48.9%- 35.5%- 100.0%-
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN ROAD & 106TH STREET
APRIL 13, 2004
SOUTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 61 3 64 522 30 552 28 1 29 611 34 645
7- 8 60 7 67 801 31 832 20 4 24 881 42 923
8- 9 66 5 71 543 63 606 15 7 22 624 75 699
PM
4- 5 62 2 64 440 53 493 7 1 8 509 56 565
5- 6 96 1 97 437 37 474 15 1 16 548 39 587
6- 7 79 0 79 397 23 420 13 1 14 489 24 513
PASSENGER 424 3140 98 3662
95.9% 93.0% 86.7% 93.1%
TRUCK 18 237 15 270
4.1% 7.0% 13.3% 6.9%
BOTH 442 3377 113 3932
11.2% 85.9% 2.9% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 166 4 170 66 2 68 11 2 13 243 8 251
7- 8 349 9 358 118 1 119 50 3 53 517 13 530
8- 9 248 12 260 103 6 109 57 6 63 408 24 432
PM
4- 5 167 11 178 III 11 122 100 5 105 378 27 405
5- 6 159 6 165 101 10 III 97 0 97 357 16 373
6- 7 146 3 149 59 1 60 97 1 98 302 5 307
PASSENGER 1235 558 412 2205
96.51> 94.7% 96.0% 96.0%
TRUCK 45 31 17 93
3.5% 5.3% 4.0% 4.0%
BOTH 1280 589 429 2298
55.7% 25.6% 18.7% 100.0%
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S1 - Existing Traffic
6/24/2004
-
-
IJt.~.~.
HCM Average Control Delay 35.4 HCM Level of Service D
~MI\(i5lume,\toj~aci~1ratio..~ '!IJ,t.OJ\i..'/ .,. ~ 0 '~.,!iiIIII:~~j~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
m@~~ctlQ'J)[~t~Bal:;l!Y1t!Jtil!~tiP:~o_-!\!,.;1'...'I.!t~VfiIfOlJs~~J!ii!I&'''i''B
Analysis Period (min) 15
cir..6riticat.Hane..GrouR'.. . '~.." . ~ ~ th!. '.>.~" .':i!!IiII!iJIL~iIk?dd
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S1 - Existing Traffic
6/24/2004
~ -t f+- -\..~ t I'" \. ~../
~.l!IIIii~JIII!;~~lI~IiIJfd~~fi,t~
Lane Configurations 4> 'i t ." 'i t ." 'i t ."
J(ji!a!llilpw~t](~ . :00. '~900 ..~900900 ~:OO '. .1;900, ,~900;"i':;~~JI.~l>~t]!
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
*ai;\etlittil?l!ia'9!pri,dO .!I.O' .t,~)O.~~iO ~.;O~~~()!!m~o.
Frt 0.95 ~ .00 ~ .00 0.85 ~ .00 1.00 0.85 ~ .00 ~ .00 0.85
~rQ!.~It(j___~!it9~Of' ,1,-00'~0!9 ..00' ,,00
Satd. Flow (prot) ~666 ~67~ ~759 ~495 ~67~ ~759 ~495 ~67~ ~759 ~495
Iii. 'Ii!ettnitt!,!(j' . oAf! ' 'O.aS 'Hto '. 1~OOJ Qe3S.' 1.0,!1' '1.00 'Oi~i1~. 1"QO, 1.'Q.
Satd. Flow (perm) ~546 6~4 ~759 ~495 6~6 ~759 ~495 ~95 ~7S9 ~495
MorllOreIF'tj, 2~'1113, 91J 62 ',B8Zi 2"~
Peak.hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
.If-F.!p tj 2aO 1.92 '.. '1!,6 . . 69 .. q9B6 ' .2'1:6. '9;71 1..
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 70 0 0 ~ 23 0 0 5
~ii1~~1:gJ1P1F.:!9~(ypl;1)_Alllit~~_0_192_1~6!_~f1i_6_986_153i1:~pA61111J1111;j
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Ii! " ectai:J'I2' a. .es. ' !k1
Permitted Phases 4
~ctua'teaiGteen, .. I s
Effective Green, g (s)
~0fua ,f>9!(jI(F;)IIiIa.tib
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
~!~l~.!'1D~iQ!!lt~)__g.!!-1_310_3:0u;'ii!!3!O!l'I!.!3!0_3IO_3jO_;3!0~~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 499 ~98 568 483 34~ 974 828 ~08 974 828
vis Biitlo"E/rot .. .mOB. cm5~j3;1~"t!
vis Ratio Perm O. ~O 0.50 0.00
v!0'!3a.lio .. iO:1'&. . '0:90 O~' .0;0.1
Uniform Delay, d~ 7.2 ~ 2.9 9.4 6.5
~essiQ!'I1Ha0tQ~~~00"4~~
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 62.3 2.3 0.0
EJe!ayJ:.@.....7~~
Level of Service A E B A
~l'1rQa0ffl,1i) Ia.y....(IDj" ii1!!'ii!!. . 2.M' .
Approach LOS D C
~~!I!I!i1
HCM Average Control Delay 33.7 HCM Level of Service C
!TI(F;)M,,!l(plutne...tp,"apacitytt<\tip . "'. .:QQ' ,.;jy ., .... . ."'o'" H '. '
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of losf time (s)
m!~@Q!RmI(1;a'Ra<:i!YJWfiti~1.!1iQ1j~E1)1"&I!Qf'SelYk;e . ",
Analysis Period (min) ~ 5
~i'iti;;aI:l!aDe!(JtQu.B ."
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S2A
6/24/2004
-+
-
liJI~1!IJi~~1n~
HCM Average Control Delay 22.4 HCM Level of Service C
!;I0MJi.~8J!TID~jt010~<lQ~ratlp 'O.'l2.. . *".' h '~~~!I
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.0 Sum of lost time (5) 8.0
Jt1t!ifSeQt[QDICalJ.agj!Ylt1ltili~tiQ~~OI$J.o/4'IIJIIiI!,lc.W~I!'i1teliPllSWi~~~__
Analysis Period (min) 15
~i~anIranelGroiJR .' . .
" '.:!Ii:" ." . .
.:~~B!___4
~~~~;:3&m-~~.
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S2A
6/24/2004
/_"'). ~-,-,\ t 1'\.+';
~.......~~~!?~
Lane Configurations 'I to 'I t , 'I H , 'I H ,
W~a.!I~IGw.~,,!'iIi) J,9,aO J1WO ,1W0: ~J)()O ~:~0900 . t1Wa if 00 ' ,', ' ~900. ' !f9QQ" 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
~fi,l5amo ',UO '!f~' J;OO UlO, !f~aO lt1.oa "0!95'd:r~~~
Frt 1.00 0.93 J .00 J .00 0.85 J .00 1.00 0.85 J .00 1.00 0.85
~lt!l\!t"OfapfeO :.0!9 U! 095:. f.,aa . .110 '0,9 "', WOGf,OO, ..0,95 .00 ' if.Q!iJ
Sato. Flow (prot) J67J J644 J67J 1759 J495 167J 3343 J495 J67J 3343 J495
IfWeermitte1l 'a, Oif::r 00 if,QOO,Q4 f~aO . if..OOr O!ifO[ ij.,aof.ao
Satd. Flow (perm) J J68 J644 266 1759 J495 605 3343 J495 J84 3343 J495
~iflJJa~ffi)O' ,229 1!a;,. R:a"3 ng'l>92'98. 8'7; ~
Peak.hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~j;.F.lowA\\!P..c ",8 '2.'131 1,'1 itOil 2;1Q88, 331.., 97;. 63.3'"' ifi1!
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 0 0 0 68 0 0 J 22 0 0 6
m'~~lqJMiwRi1}1111I1zJi~_Ii}~!!IIII36~;Q~81112Q9"9]_693~
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm+ov pm+pt pm+ov
~rotect(l!eI'iM~, . "3 .' 'a-, 2 " 3 .' '0"" rz
Permitted Phases 2 6
~Gtuateo!G(!lteh; . ,(~ ."~9.@~1:q52,iI", .59!
Effective Green, g (s) 38.3 32.4 51.4 41.5 41.5 54.5 50.3 65.3 60.7 53.4 59.3
:e::C!ila.t~:9~~'~015:4_0!5~~
Clearance Time (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0
~~I:1i<::,IJ!JJ~~@iQ'n1(~)r~3I()_3f()_13;()Ir'I'$IQ_3fQ_3;a.!i1!i~3JQ~i@_3!a_3!()~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 394 440 287 603 5J3 3JO J390 856 J82 J475 782
~1S"Ratlo,Rro! '0. .D. 3 .cD,ifO'a,08 .' mDJ"c.0!3.~aiO,3.k4?sQj~I,19r~!JV.Qg
vis Ratio Perm 0.05 cO.25 O. J 2 O. n 0.23 0.00
.vlc!Ralo .. ' '0.20: .85 1i}:30'- 'O.ll8. 'ma4" 'LOi53 , 9'43 D10;'
Uniform Delay, dJ 29.6 27.2 J9.7 30.6 J4.8 2J.3 23.3 J5.8
l?J'ogressiony,ac!o(, if. . fnOO ~16 m28.D:4;'i!' .fIOQ.1"00 ,w,:O.O
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 20.0 0.4 3.7 O. J 3.0 0.9 0.0
~l!!Yll@ ." .29,9',4' .2 "3.6' 12;3,'. 'ili I d' 4~!ill-!
Level of Service C DAB A C C B
~[jRroacfilIDJjilayl@ , . , 1D\6% .
Approach LOS D B C
1mJ:~[!Iji~\iR~.
HCM Average Control Delay 24.4 HCM Level of Service . C
~fu!:!e,tolefip'aci!Y'rat'o . Q!82~* " :. . 'A .. . y'. iI\!!!i!4i~~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) J2J.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
It)teiSectiomeapJ.l'Ci!YI(!ffi[it$!tioQ_''1\8tQf/.~le]J.ll!$jlel!RfISeiY~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
CJlJieritical'!Lans1Groun ..
~~iioihi;~r::
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
32
I AM PEAK S2B
I 12: 106th Street & Michigan Road 6/24/2004
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I "," m "4" ,,'0,3
I " 0.'15' ''ifj
I A
I
I
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page 3
I 33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S2B
6/28/20.0.4
-
-
rm1!f~~li&[;f~~!i!iiQ]iI~__il__il.~
HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C
liielV1~Vol(Jrn.molCanaci"j'ratioW/ '0.,83'> !q;' '
~'.' = ~~~.~y,
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113,0.
Jti1te~",cti9i'it(!)~l21icl1Y~Wtilizatior\' "", ,Z8Th1~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~OOicald!ahe,Groun: illr, > ~"'"
~""i...-..rn...""""~",..."I"'~,,. ,~
Sum of lost time (s)
'10\JFlfeveIZOf!Service >
16,0.
"D~-
.,.,~.~~
.." .~:' ::w -1!' .~~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co" LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S3A
6/24/2004
-
-
li!J~m!)!~~JI~t
HCM Average Control Delay 18.8 HCM Level of Service B
~~M~W5iO(lieif~<D~Qii!cil~ralio. ,. fu;;.. "0164:~'"' "':' .
Actuated Cycle Length (5) 85.0 Sum of los' time (5) 8.0
)1l'$"rseClion(<#!:!pE..itY!~1iZi\liiih_65%3?1ol!illlllL~!J!Ii~'rot:~l!QflSE:i!Ni';:~
Analysis Period (min) 15
c'iliGntiCai1!ran.,1Gl'Oun. . . ..'" ". .. '".
-.-.~"""""''''''''- ,.-,;
,~ '
~'~.~' " ;) ,"~ \,,~ .,
"'
" .
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 ReRor!
Page 4
35
I PM PEAK S3A
I 12: 106th Street & Michigan Road 6/28/2004
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I . ~~.'~
I
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page 4
I 36
I AM PEAK S3B
I 12: 106th Street & Michigan Road 6/24/2004
-
-+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page 3
I 37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S3B
6/28/2004
~
~
-+
-
'-
I!iil~~~1iQ~~~ma,W_~~
HCM Average Control Delay 24.7 HCM Level of Service C
~t;1lv'j5Iumelt01eal2acitYB!io:'!!lIr'
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
!li!!E[fsectioi11~~i!iimzatiof\ .
Analysis Period (min)
2il[el'mcror!!af\~~.r.QLJ~ x'
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S4 - Year 2014 Traffic
6/28/2004
-
-
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S4 - Year 2014 Traffic
6/28/2004
~
\..
.....
~
-
-+-
!." 'C(.
> I~
mit~~~~t!~~
HCM Average Control Delay 50.4 HCM Level of Service D
!J"f~9ILTm1:iltgx@j:rRacity~~~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
!b:teisectioij,eaRaci!YlIDtilif"!tO:ti~'t11!11!190!;4&',,'I1\:gi~1le'velJM!S.eNJG~J;~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~II!.EWti~:traneiGrQJjR.
"
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S5A
6/25/2004
--to-
+-
IEII~~~~.~
HCM Average Control Delay 48.1 HCM Level of Service D
E!(E;Mi\'lPiQ.mj:!jto1;e~acit~:ratip ,'" 0E96R\dJ:'. ."j . "i'ill
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 127.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
!tJ1\'rSj:!cflo.a~'QaC!!yj.,}i~~.leJ)jiJr;weI!9f!~1!i1?iG~..I..~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~.mll!!arf&'k<?J~p'"'ii['if&..~~~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
41
I PM PEAK S5A
I 12: 106th Street & Michigan Road 6/25/2004
-
-+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page 4
I 42
I AM PEAK S5B
I 12: 106th Street & Michigan Road 6/28/2004
./ +-
-+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"b~~~Qiffi','^",
I
I ,zOli;li'.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page 3
I 43
I PM PEAK S5B
I 12: 106th Street & Michigan Road 6/25/2004
~ - '- '-. .;
-+-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page 3
I 44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S6A
6/25/2004
-+
-
I!11J~~!j~!t\'!~~
HCM Average Control Delay 36.7 HCM Level of Service D
mefVi~'Viohjm'~ltQJ~)l~acit~Tfatio' j oms 1 ;t&h ," 41. ,0i0
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intefsectkrt)[~apaci1Y~Wtilizii!lon. . 81;;,1% .. JeUl'l!evel!DfgService,~ , . . .8. ...~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~. '€ni1Cj;jilraneYGfoiJ~!i!'i!TIili!Iij!!I!iffi!!ii!!i!!,!fJ!f&"H!!i_J1!!iffi1~1i= ".... ....
~"",",""'M' .~. ..L ~~"'~ill;~~~!\i1;N' tv;!? >>3. x N
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S6A
6/25/2004
-
-
~ji1jjIroa:~~~
HCM Average Control Delay 42.4 HCM level at Service D
i1'!G<fY1J"V:ol1,J[Oe,tohe!JPaci~,ratio::; '.,' .019'" "." .",.:, ";~~"9~,
Actuated Cycle length (s) 121.0 Sum of lost time (s)
l,ntersection1eaRac!!WWtili~iorf . ~~x!!fcl ,jl€:'ill~vef!Qf12'[~ice',.','
Analysis Period (min) 15
!;;.~caH!rar;je!GtotJr?""~'" '~. :..'
"
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., llC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 4
46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S6B
6/25/2004
-
-
~~I~_~~
HCM Average Control Delay 37.2 HCM Level of Service D
Ii\CMj,'i',olutnelto,€eBePity,ratio . . . :Q:65~'
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 133.0 Sum of lost time (s)
rr:;tefsectioDlea'BaPi~j!Jtilizati6Q",' ., 8J!!;1fk .rb . ,16l'.J1Ife'lelrc5JIService'
Analysis Period (min) 15
SJiL!!6"ili9ffil!uane~,G!;2!!B .
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
12: 106th Street & Michigan Road
S6B
6/25/2004
-
-
~!!m!!IJ1
HCM Average Control Delay 39.3 HCM Level of Service D
!i!(3Ml~olLfmejtole@iicitY4ratio.'" : :1.00.
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Ii1tsrsectiOrJk(j;a.~"cit\lIl!JtiJization . .:9!1~9!7"9 . ~'.: .JelfJl~~~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
pJi!!'J.Crit~g!L~a~!'1iGrQlIB.. . '.....
._..."'''~-
"..,1'*~~~!b1~
WA',
..
" , );O:;h #~
'j@}X ~
:;, '~ '"
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MICHIGAN ROAD & RETAIL P ARKW A Y
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
AND
CAPACITY ANALYSES
49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN & TARGET DRIVE
APRIL 15, 2004
PEAK HOUR DATA
AM PEAK
HR BEGIN 7,45 AM
L T R TOT
OFF PEAK
PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 5,00 PM
L T R TOT
L
T R
TOT
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
12
1
6
40
47 60
10 14
3 9
1 43
2
3
17
113
170 173
2 6
o 18
20 134
s f'G' I,~-rj yf.
HOUR SUMMARY
s'F~ f*'- 1'/1 57.
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 27 4 31 5 30 35 66
7- 8 40 9 49 7 33 40 89
8- 9 57 10 67 14 32 46 113
- PM -
4- 5 126 28 154 14 131 145 299
5- 6 173 18 191 6 134 140 331
6- 7 137 21 158 3 124 127 285
TOTAL 560 90 650 49 484 533 1183
47.3%- 7.6% 54.9%- 4.1% 40.9% 45.1% 100.0%
- AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 19 5 7 11
HOUR 60 10 14 43
PHF 0.79 0.50 0.50 0.98
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
lS-MIN 51 9 6 40
HOUR 173 29 14 134
PHF 0.85 0.81 0.58 0.84
50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN & TARGET DRIVE
APRIL 15, 2004
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 3 1 4 1 0 1 19 3 22 23 4 27
7- 8 8 0 8 1 0 1 31 0 31 40 0 40
8- 9 10 2 12 1 0 1 42 2 44 53 4 57
PM
4- 5 6 1 7 1 0 1 116 2 118 123 3 126
5- 6 2 o. 2 1 0 1 169 1 170 172 1 173
6- 7 2 0 2 1 0 1 133 1 134 136 1 137
PASSENGER 31 6 510 547
88.6% 100.0% 98.3% 97.7%
TRUCK 4 0 9 13
11.4% 0.0% 1.7% 2.3%
BOTH 35 6 519 560
6.3% 1.1% 92.7% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 5 0 \ 5
7- 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 6 6 1 ,7
8- 9 1 0 1 2 0 2 8 3 11 11 3 1\4
PM \
'.
4- 5 3 0 3 1 0 1 9 1 10 13 1 14
5- 6 3 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 0 6
6- 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 3
PASSENGER 9 7 28 44
100.0% 100.0% 84.8% 89.8%
TRUCK 0 0 5 5
0_0% 0.0% 15.2% 10.2%
BOTH 9 7 33 49
18.4% 14.3% 67.3% 100.0%
51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DUKE REALTY
MICHIGAN & TARGET DRIVE
APRIL 15, 2004
SOUTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 0 4
7- 8 6 0 6 1 0 1 2 0 2 9 0 9
8- 9 6 0 6 1 0 1 2 1 3 9 1 10
PM
4- 5 25 0 25 1 0 1 2 0 2 28 0 28
5- 6 17 0 17 1 0 1 0 0 0 18 0 18
6- 7 20 0 20 1 0 1 0 0 0 21 0 21
PASSENGER 76 6 7 89
100.0'1; 100.0'1; 87.5'1; 98.9'1;
TRUCK 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 1.1%
BOTH 76 6 8 90
84.4'1; 6.7% 8.9% 100.0'1;
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 21 5 26 1 0 1 3 0 3 25 5 30
7- 8 29 1 30 1 0 1 2 0 2 32 1 33
8- 9 29 1 30 1 0 1 1 0 1 31 1 32
PM
4- 5 117 1 118 1 0 1 12 0 12 130 1 131
5- 6 112 1 113 1 0 1 20 0 20 133 1 134
6- 7 99 1 100 1 0 1 23 0 23 123 1 124
PASSENGER 407 6 61 474
97.6% 100.0% 100.0'1; 97.9'1>
TRUCK 10 0 0 10
2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%
BOTH 417 6 61 484
86.2'1> 1.2% 12.6% 100.0'1;
52
,- ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
81 - Existing Traffic
6/25/2004
-
+-
r~1~~~Qiiii~~~~~
HCM Average Control Delay 6.7 HCM Level of Service A
]i[Ci%~olb[ffentQj~I!p'acjfS{i{atl(h~ '&OI5j.. . ""'.
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
jntehiect12D:~p..!!LitYjgJtilizatipn.' .. ;49,9W,,". ''I!J(i)i]jJl!~Ser)ij~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~rffiCimiffi'f\erGrbUp' .;. ~"jjj11;!!i!@!'.'.
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
53
I PM PEAK 51 - Existing Traffic
I 9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road 6/24/2004
-
-
I
I
I
I 0.90
I
I
I
I
I 0,06
35.8
I :^/p/,'
I
I
. .
I
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page 3
I 54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S2A
6/25/2004
-+-
-
Ifli~~:!'[~~~"iem]f[rt1:
HCM Average Control Delay 3.9 HCM Level of Service A
17teMI~olum~~ o;;J3aQacityjfatio "L%t' .t~ ,Oz53" "~1, 'y" ,~"'iir' ,'" t" '$<:'
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.0 Sum of lost time (s)
~epti0l1teaRacl!Yl!1Ijili?~ti()p~5i1~,1f/~I'!:?.![!!!eviHrQfBSii'NiCe1!i, .
Analysis Period (min) 15
~~il!ane;Gf@:r?"
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S2A
6/24/2004
-
-4-
1~~~m~~~~/i&!1III!!I~~
HCM Average Control Delay 10.4 HCM Level of Service B
!i!,B1YI~)%oltXrt)$l!QlG(aQacLtYjri:i!~~'~ ,
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 121.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersectiohl€aRac"'IH:Jlfliz1jfjoO . ,;!62~3%h; igl€(JJlJ!evelrofQSe'iYJ~B~
~ ".. . '. ~Jj,., << ...... ',..,. '..' ."""",~J.&~ThtfEft0!B'i€,%giJjgmfit~i!$JB.EffJlm!2!IDm,~tIBi:5I*'"
Analysis Period (min) 15
~0l1f~if~~. ....
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S2B
6/25/2004
-+
-
I-~~~
HCM Average Control Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service
J!I~M!k\Zolur'1J~lto]:<,,~c~~q'57;jf';'IiiJ!:.. t..... .' ~.
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.0 Sum of lost time (s)
UJ1Ej~tiojj'~BaCi!YI"tilizatior_6~%_~eU2IreV:el!QfISETo;yiCEJ
Analysis Period (min) 15
~~Gntic~il!anei:Groun, ..,jiX . 12lL" ~&df'fb:jJi~1&';'" ,
~ _M ='^~~ ~ ;g;,""'tm'Wi'.....'
I1'I!
A
..~...
'-J.: "'" '
,-" . "' ,
. " .
12.0
',}/w B~.
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S2B
6/28/2004
.-J-
..;
-
-
'-
!m~t~Mtl<!@1I~i'II'i1~Wj,,~_liiIIlJ!_~_
HCM Average Control Delay 97.9 HCM Level of Service F
11rciJt:1~'((olUme!t01eapa.citYAra.ti9.Pm.. '. ~,03 ii.~..
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12,0
!!iJter.S'ectidnl€a.f:>a.!:l!Y11P.tin~~tiQ~96!ofJJJI!!!IE.4I(;;mlf!.e~I~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
f~gil!J!atfelGrb~Q ~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S3A
6/25/2004
-
+-
jQl~j!$~~t!
HCM Average Contro! Delay 3.1 HCM Level of Service A
"'''M.'',..!....\.... . ,..t' "~48" ~---
~~ umai Q~"",aRaC!; Ar~ilo . ;v.. .~1.. ~F."' cd/: srd~4 .~~~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.G Sum of lost time (s) 12.G
~r .\ ~\'-'''' ... ;,;,,,,\"! t"., .. .4~'30" !di1""w.~.r..f.'"'S~-.a~~ ~----
11 ersec IOl1j~Rac.~,~Jj~J In;t; Ion " "11;;/0 ~ ')<" .,2 QAI!JlLtle'le 10 f\- er;ylce '~~~\L,~~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
_.\.~.!'t"mG... ....~ . ". . ~~~~".. .~~... . ,,"' .
C7Elli\.:lrlICR}\c:afJe; ;" faun' . ; ;?;L~ ";7'<.7 :;~)k.. '" ! , ;%j; ;, 03;:::',"', ,. . ::::," )';":t*;~~'if",hlli ' ,,('. '^
, . """'~_.. .~r:::: ' :\Jdni. =', ""_''''... ",,"' . ~, ',," ."
Baseline
A & F Engineering 60., LL6
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S3A
6/28/2004
..)
'-
-cI
-+
-
I!i\'tjf~~Qt!&:ii$E
HCM Average Control Delay 7.5 HCM Level of Service A
mGM~VolumejfOt(;;aJiacit:l[iati6;; .,.' d 0!56..' ~'.'.'~ ..
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
lr;1tE)rS'ectioi'11~!!JiaQi.tW!1JJilization.54S9:JI~. . ..,IJ~}I)JI!:$Ii.E)I!9fIS.,i[f.2i&Ef' ..'
Analysis Period (min) 15
C'&]lGrlffcajth1mef1<3rouh:, ."
_tiili""~_'i:""",.. ~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S3B
6/25/2004
-
-4-
~~~
~m.....",,".M.~.." ."_"" ' ..,.............._,. . . _ "' . . _ . .. ".,'" .iillm, _" ,,_ ..'_ ~. _
HCM Average Control Delay
~M1v,pa'ri'wltOJ$aj'jaci~!rajiQ
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
ibtei"$e.c.tiQ~1!Rac~Ji(i2iitiQn
Analysis Period (min)
~Gl1ficall@neIGrouh' ~ 0. <"
::r~~,~ _t::::
,t8 - -+r:---~qL&m,'
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S3B
6/28/2004
~
.I
-+
+-
'-
!!1i~!1~fjWi'ilE1I)fn:Iiji!!1,WI1~~
HCM Average Conlrol Delay 42.2 HCM Level of Service D
if!"M~.I-~:t:7~~'I~~~ .I'~ 8~1~i!1 ".
~ Q\v;O ume; o=0~QaCJ Y~ft!~f&QL '. ~', ,/~!r . ~fui" ,;02':'-y F~ ~.,
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost lime (5) 16.0
rme[se"c.!!Qi1!@a~p.Ulizati~;1~2~I€J'Jlure~!!oflSJWic~lIr~~~
Ana'X.si~ Period (min) 15
,...."..t."'"1"i1!"'~G~ .
cx@,,,:,nIGalfl!qrw,;;'~MPMA'f)g,,~~~~;;.
",ut;
!i!i!"". ... _.._ _~'1!IT _
' ,~ ~0,".' WI m -,. . ~.'1' $; . W
, ,~', ,,'- ~'. ,/':.. ...~r .,,'. -:~:iu' ~ '"'+Jl;{ -: . ~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
84 - Year 2014 Traffic
6/28/2004
..J-
-
-
111;!"m~B~r:[oo&
HCM Average Control Delay 9.5 HCM Level of Service A
~i.v'oILirn!)itQ16"R""citYcirati~ '" '. ,.m ""0'''',, 'ii.
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89,6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
mt~~e"ctio?icapaciWIDtilizati6tf" 6~'.8P/;".., ICli1!l!evel,()1rSm'\l~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~ffrcaim:af:i~IGr09Q : ,,^,^"t
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
84 - Year 2014 Traffic
6/28/2004
-+
-
1~1[~~-iI'lIIIIli!l~~
HCM Average Control Delay 19.7 HCM Level of Service B
""RM'='I' , t.~"", ".ti,f<""'~_mt'o""59 S1W__11iII
JtJq,. $'v;O.uroea9;LCiaQaCl!1"il~l.. ." ~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.4 Sum ollosl time (s)
li\1t!irse-c.tiofiheap'ac@ill!JtmzatiO!i~lOi6 ,,~>li!JreJ!iI~fseiVice '
Analysis Period (min) 15
B<iJ:(itii:alllE<!JlelG~QJ?JI;! "
''''':
','A> '
.,.
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S5A
6/25/2004
-
-
mt~~1t~~WI!!i"~~
HCM Average Control Delay 6.7 HCM Level of Service A
'" 6JW)lo un;leito.Ga/2aCI!YiiraIIQ ,". ." . . ().6f) "Iiiii!J!"~."
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 127.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
~ijjj!;:i:!YhIDtiliz~62~~1%~~U!.1J\i~I1Qf~ "B="", '~., .;'.""""
Analysis Period (min) 15
m\itritiC1;lIIg-an$lGJ;QfJ~ ~; '"k:
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
65
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S5A
6/25/2004
-+
+--
I~~~
HCM Average Control Delay 21.0 HCM Level of Service C
,.0 %1ilolume1to'eai:;!MiTh\JtatiC:> . ~uO,86. """',
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 146.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
!iiterSectian1(%pacitWJ!j)1j@!ti~4jY~~IDil.1evell.Of~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~!!~~~lG(qu~~ .,..
& "
J'
.~
. !l!i!9i."
o.
.
. ".
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
66
I AM PEAK S5B
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road 6/28/2004
I
+-
-+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I , ~
I
I
I
I
I ~ +
I
I
I Baseline Synchro 6 Report
A & F Engineering Co., LLC Page 2
I 67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S5B
6/25/2004
-
+-
~ .
ft. "
'$7 ;1':>"' .:j
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
68
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S6A
6/25/2004
..... -""t f- '-,\ t". '-.~.;
rm~~...~__~q
lane Configurations 40 'I t. 'I 1'1' ." 'I 1't.
~~Jijl!:>~l..~~
Total lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
!!"~m~1PJiI",.t\'I~j;Jt'" :'. ill! t) ~o.R j~O'.95- ;1~!JQ"iJj!OQ ;019
Frt 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
i;; ,etpt~! 1kQ' 0,; 0 - - ~~ 1~o.- - Di95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1535 1671 1495 3343 1495 1671 3342
ann e 1.00 0!95 ..,&0. . , 00 ..0.0, -t)J"l3
Satd. Flow (perm) 1535 1671 1495 3343 1495 625
~Q.[~(JI tj . a. a -53i 63
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
,.r;;fQ!o!'ii1) . 61 O' --9 :11.
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 17 0 0 0 23 0 0 0
!!JlQ"'iilgf~~1~O_O~_1~1.!iI.IIII~~i!1}.1~~
Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm pm+pt
",(G), eB:l .2nase if
Permitted Phases
~c!ua!ea/Gfee.!j!.. e _$)>>
Effective Green. g (s)
~tlIJat1td!W~~~!io.
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~~J1!G!!:]j~~~_~'\i,f,~1.Q_gfQl~il.III3m~!Q~31Q~Oe~
lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 120 107 173 2542 1137 544 2741
~1;I}J.tiQ Bro - 60,01'1 (;003' .:. 0 0,2:. -_ '> aiOO' :CT~
vis Ratio Perm 0_06 0.05 0.07
_~jQ~.ilo.!D~_1f2~
Uniform Delay, d1 64.6 59.7 57.8 4.1 4.9 4.0 2.5 4.3
!i,:~g~~c.I!:!~~~~&a1lil!'P!8B,Q!~
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 2.9 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6
f)~.8:11!6~1~4"2re.~
level of Service E E E A A A A A
~I?f!roac ]WJj i!YiI! 136. .: 6 111. - . '1~9 . . , -
Approach lOS E E A
!B~
HCM Average Control Delay 4.9 HCM level of Service A
~~Qlbli!\e1tol€ill1acj!y'.Irabo(j,59 ~ -. .
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
m!erSectiQrn\~I!WcJ.lWi\1l,$]i~[b9~~M1af~(jf,!I[~!i~'r!1t{smYlcr~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
mf~~.,L~Q~~~Q, '
a) "",:Y
=~
._'. ~~~t1i~;m
.
. .
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
69
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S6A
6/25/2004
.-f -"t ~+- '-,\ t". \. +.;
~-~~,~
Lane Configurations 4> 'I 1> 'I tt " 'I t1>
~~~~~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
.
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
EII'ro! ;le1'l . '..5 1..00' . ;0,
Satd. Flow (prot) 1616 1671 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3343
~!t
Satd. Flow (perm) 1616 1671 1495 385 3343 1495 140 3343
~~9 {} ~. ~ .:a,
Peak. hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~r.ffil{J">Y' @;~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 122 0 0 0 28 0 0 0
~l[etGl~gWlf.!~(mDJ~$'!_~!}~!1~
Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm pm+pt
~!~m!i[~~~~
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Dat~1G~e;~J~~~~~
Effective Green, g (s) 2.4 22.6 22.6 74.1 74.1 74.1 84.0 84.0
?<0tffa!~iI9/&:jjlj1alio " DiD O. 79.1 O;e; . 1!)16. omit! . 0;69' 0;69
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~m1!!r~~_~~!!1~J_fIIIIIII{al~_l!l_~~~.ill~_
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 32 312 279 236 2047 916 172 2321
i?LS1iRai~rl[~0]!~d!q2~<[~W~~!'3r>..--~
vis Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 0.34
~~~
Uniform Delay, d1 58.2 45.8 40.8 9.1 17.1 9.8 15.5 8.8
ei;ogtessJoo1'; eto. 01-.00 ~OO 01 '0.;1,0:*<8 .;. a..
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 5.6 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.2 1.8 0.5
I!)1!J~YI(~1.., 59; <; tit. 140,91.8 1" L ~5
Level of Service E D D A A A B B
~loaGllDe.lay~s . .. 59 i4'l.,0 ,,~ 1~~
Approach LOS E D B
~.
HCM Average Control Delay 13.6 HCM Level of Service B
l[~tV.oli)~tm!'1Macity*riilio' ." '. .0'!'Z2. ~~~~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 121.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
'i)tl;(t!fe:C1ioIi!~!?!!.~itYi\!ltil@j[9.!I~~21Y~({i;.I!I!~~Jrc[fl$:gr&.l~~~~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~€ritiCalr..l1arie<Gr:ouh S;~ ' 2~ff~~u.....
",_~~_.-~I'::i .. . UJt~~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S6B
6/25/2004
--'" -," 1"- '-,\ t ~ ~ +.1
~al
Lane Configurations 40 1j f> 1j tt ." 1j tf>
f!!jfl!'iI!Ji1litW1!2mrm>J 11190' '90' i1cOOP tl,90,'
Total Lost time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
ni;!!ll9Jil",iamqr,-.' '.0; , 95
Frt 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
~~
Satd. Flow (prot) 1535 1671 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3342
I P.e .itteB O. '9-6: P fM~.
Satd. Flow (perm) 1535 1671 1495 234 3343 1495 624 3342
~M~ 'i1cf3j' 1'80: 1a
Peak.hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~~~2~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 42 0 0 0 62 0 0 0
!@[!1l~!fR!i1Q~~~i:.~~~
Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm pm+pt
~~[eaJ!i'~
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
,,,,.t...t~""G,h' iJi!'G'( '. ""90" () ". O.
~~~ r~err~~$. _ ..' ;a\!~'" ~ .' "... ~I. ' : - lh
Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 91.7 91.7 91.7 102.1 102.1
~.'CfU~.,;g'g[@'!l;!ati()'.... ,a~~~~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~~fJjiI~&!!JD.$JQ.i;iU$)mif~!aA~1(i!_+31Ji)~__l!'1~!~lQ~!!III~!Ji)"'?!Q_..
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 206 184 161 2305 1031 529 2566
~ti9.l~~Om8JlLq~0~Q~I'}~lQk1!il~.~
vis Ratio Perm 0.06 0.09 0.16
~~~~OIj;~_
Uniform Delay, d1 64.1 55.4 51.3 6.8 8.0 7.1 4.3 6.9
'~FOgLE!~~IRfllmiJGJQn~~~
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 5.8 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6'
&Yl(~ ...il; . . tl 263
Level of Service E E D A A A A A
~imTc1acfilD1!l1iYJJ s ifi!15 .. ' .3%9
Approach LOS E E A
[~~-
HCM Average Control Delay 8.7 HCM Level of Service A
Ei~M~'lC:nt)tiJ~~pl~~Ci!y~Jjcj )t_ O;611t> 1 L
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 133.0 Sum of lost time (s)
!~c~~<;jW~lIf~i!tiQ!!~~!i1;ullg~ef'Ot[S"r~'c
Analysis Period (min) 15
13'''''0',' rit1CaiJlEane1GYd(;'i'i~~ .,' .
~!...._~~~~.?,,_~~~J.it~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
9: Retail Parkway & Michigan Road
S6B
6/25/2004
~ -). ~- '-,\ t ~ '.!";
~Ii!~_~~
Lane Configurations 4+ 'I f> 'I tt 'f 'I tf>
~Io~ ..t! ) ~,9f)Q .9f) '9f) ; Q ,9Q!J '~.
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
L~"'n~""";'t'Ii1i"'a' "0" .0' , ~*" , O. ,1.,
~.I..fi'^ ,fi, [.",,~, lJ;i;V,,. fl~,
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
~,!iI;~fect. ,.~~
Satd. Flow (prot) 1616 1671 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3343
~QI~"~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1616 1671 1495 442 3343 1495 130 3343
~ot!.ltuel(J1WJi ;' q( !k 28
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
mI!i\0l\~~~~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 212 0 0 0 219 0 0 0
1f(jD'!!l<at~.i!pimQ~i(V,i,it;O_~i!.~Q~IP80_'ti~Q~~~~_~,p"'.li~.-1!I
Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm pm+pt
~. tootea'ji1 sEl$. 8
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
~Cii1!!ga~~~4. ,. .4$0 ' '1.
Effective Green, g (s) 2.4 63.6 63.6 50.0 50.0 50.0 72.0 72.0
~15tMter~W~litafi9. "~'. ' ',0102." '0,~0~3~~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
l,r""'r"EXf"lr"G"'(').~~'""""'*""~"~~_-3io1l1i\'ili~a'l0-!O~la--
b&~;tJ!H~':i.;,,",,~^,,~lQ(;1j 9 <;?~j$$_J,,-:,f~~j~g~:~~~~,~,_.,,~j.Ykrei.~~L~$V~~~_h@~l8'~~~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 26 709 634 147 1114 498 247 1605
~7Sf~91ef,QI~~~~~a!~O_
vis Ratio Perm 0.00 0.23 0.41
iR~~.\5___
Uniform Delay, d1 72.8 38.1 27.8 33.5 50.0 43.4 68.2 28.9
~r.<?!'f~si1igi)'!iF.!I(l19~~~
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 7.3 0.2 0.1 101.1 5.5 86.7 1.2
. , e aYi!! " '4416: " 2!k .28, ' ;V 315' , ,2 '1 52'\,
Level of Service E D C C F C F D
~l?iHpacml!L~laYl.(~~' -'38. :0.. " .. ~
Approach LOS E D F E
~.
HCM Average Control Delay 78.7
!i!J;)M~'i(ol[jrneltol€;ij,[ac!I!Y1La'i)9 .~ . 'fJI~g
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0
~(Q1!i€;~~l!Jfili~tiQn~1~
Analysis Period (min) 15
!1Il.enucal'l!!affe'Groun~ . :=,." ~ '
....,._,_~~~t:: . ~
Sum of lost time (s)
~, eve IOfSstvl.. s:
16.0
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MICHIGAN ROAD & NORTH ACCESS DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
6: North Access & Michigan Road
S2A
6/24/2004
..f -""t.f"- ~~ t I' \. +..1
~r..&ll.e~____~~
Lane Configurations 1j f> 1j1j f> 1j H 7' 1j tf>
~~~~..l.~' ~!90' II'..'!:) ". ','90.'
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1f1".e"$.,tiI'a.~Q ~? ~'!OJ'J .Gi9. ~,OOd, -~i~1~
Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
J -11 eel I, PO 019. 1~!:)O . ~'O,9 dJ' 9 .
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1627 3242 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3340
.
SaId. Flow (perm) 1671 1627 3242 1495 267 3343 1495 583 3340
ore "II 6.1 .
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~J:.;'.~.:L:::'1ii:
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 24 0 0 0 20 0 0 0
&~~..I~1(!1P~~0.J&tlo1_?~~it~J[~
Turn Type Split Split prn+pt Perm pm+pt
~~tggN
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
~iitij~t!ilIGI_G~(~~"--~9t_~~FB:~
Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 3.7 7.9 7.9 56.6 56.5 56.5 64.2 60.3
\{Iieli1atj~Br91~ti' QIQ40104...J' :'::0!!J9 ',mw.' ar6', . ,0}6. -'m6', O'l,Z.3.
Clear~n;;' Time (s) 5.0 5.0 ~.' 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.D 5.0 3.0 5.0
~~!jiQl~~...,[,!ijQI11($)~~"[_.Q1\:J~"Jt!i3;Q.!JII:$!g'~_{!J.9'-~~t(j_3j:O~!~_
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 70 68 291 134 173 2146 96D 474 2289
ml?@@l!ij~!!I!I!lI!lllm!o. 'J COLog...' ,~-cQj', .3~' 0,(j0 ....J.QI).~O'i2~OkOIfIE~
vis Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.10
ftm~~at~~~3.().O~IIIIQ~~
Uniform Delay, d1 40.5 40.5 37.7 36.5 6.9 7.2 5.8 3.8 7.5
~g~j!~t!li.~Q.~.QW"~_.!!!~
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.1 D.3 0.1 0.1 1.1
!Delay~(s . ,~_ .' . \1!fi. " 38v "3!M . .,\5' . _ 2:; '. 1~; . 3.
Level of Service D D D A A A A A
fpa f1'Eite aMlf~ .38: . 2?t . '15'
Approach LOS 0 A A
---
HCM Average Control Delay 5.2 HCM Level of Service A
B~~()IQ"1ti'&1t&1.(!';1Yia:(t~~'IO!g~_" .
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88,0
!ntqrs1\~tfQl\l.~~~t9tiliZatibh _ ,;-~ _ 57f~7.%1jjlj
Analysis Period (min) 15
_rbic~~Jl~l~tdP'~. AW: ,. ').ff;PJij*'f:j:'-,.~';;7"
Sum of lost time (s)
. ,J€;1.!J;I!~v'~lf ll$~!ViC'~
"
16.0
B
, ..
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
74
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
6: North Access & Michigan Road
S2A
6/24/2004
~ -. ('"+- '-~ t ~ '. J.';
~--.~~-
Lane Configurations , to "to , tt l' , tto
.
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Hane.IYliaJi?.>.. ,,00 0,97; .'~'O" '"l1~0 ',0.'9.. ~))O .1&.0
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
.095 a. >. .,0. - 1'),95 ~,0'9
Satd. Flow (prol) 1671 1627 3242 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3339
~I!!g_~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1627 3242 1495 490 3343 1495 122 3339
,of.e. ,'n '0. 'i~ 1~i.
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~~~~~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 143 0 0 0 91 0 0 0
.~~!gWJ\W.m:~~~~lI@~t!.~~~fL~.!_
Turn Type Split Split pm+pt Perm pm+pt
&~r~.!~fBff~_.' . 5' .
Permitted Phases 6
ie!p nale 1.6~J'iIL S,
Effective Green, 9 (s)
IrlOt!lat~g]'g#I,i. at!
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~~tIIQIgf~~WlQ!'!!:t{1l!ilIJl!II.ill.o1R3J~~_(3"ioil!.I!iB1iiI[G\~_~~!I)~~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 52 51 772 356 246 1660 743 234 1992
g;mg..iIi~Q.~'1IIIII910t:!~~Qj,030!''.0 'O,j\';1.> cO~
vis Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 c0.43
~Q,~l~~~
Uniform Delay, d1 57.0 57.0 42.3 36.2 15.5 26.2 16.8 32.2 13.9
~gl~~~iQrm:.~~~~~~~[,~m5~~
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.1 3.2 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.3 17.0 0.8
~11fiiY~~~li.3.~4~ ..IiI~i!J! 'j! . ',8.
Level of Service E E D D B B E A
~r1P~-jf)pJ;i~$ . ,0 . ....43.,];. '15,if8,
Approach LOS E D B B
!1ii
HCM Average Control Delay 22.5 HCM Level of Service C
!iI.<i1MI'{olume,lo1:.!!Ila> i!VJ!:aIIQ. aDb . .
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 121.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
!QJE!~~tl9~p]!LitY&it\lizptio~~I[\Jvel?of!Se1ilIce -
Analysis Period (min) 15
1j-<i1ntical!fi!ane." toili". '
~~~~~""'):.-,:
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
6: North Access & Michigan Road
S3A
6/24/2004
~ --~ f- '-~ t". \.~./
~~.~~...~
Lane Configurations 'I 1+ '1'1 1+ 'I t-t r' 'I t-t
~a' ,0, ' fO,~' '~f900 ~..'
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
. QE!!';.Ii, ~~1'IIo - . 5' '~~OO" ,iLO - ,.(1
Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
.
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1627 3242 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3340
ii~Ji!~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1627 3242 1495 326 3343 1495 633 3340
-am AI 51L. 3 - '6.' ~re.9
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
F.i -W; - ". !4.' ,38 ' 'tt'J.
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 24 0 0 0 14 0 0 0
-~~~~~~-~-~~~
Turn Type Splif Split pm+pt Perm pm+pt
m ' m",aS '
Permitted Phases
~lOti.la j.Je !1~,S .
Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 3.7 7.1 7.1 54.5 54.4 54.4
~!l\!ill\~1'I..!i~~~Il~&..~-,,64
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~~~~IbJ:i(~)~3LO_31jh,,"-'~_3!O_~[Q_,j!f'-3'!Q),~3(Q~.3!~!~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 73 71 271 125 211 2140 957 507 2283
~Sm1mfQ~~7P,O~OlQO~~Qj1o~.Q,~OQ~~~.QO~$~
vis Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.09
~l~~fi)~2'lilij1j!fi~2mQf[~~
Uniforrn Delay, d1 39.0 39.0 36.5 35.7 6.2 6.8 5.6 3.6 6.9
Ji:tqgJ:i~fi:~~.9~~~
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.9
" .elayts ' _,6' ' 3'iJ.' , -35.8, ' Oi~1~1 _ .0Ati' . .1~9 'S.
Level of Service D D D D A A A A A
~~9a(),!~aws 915 ' .36,.<,," ~,
Approach LOS D D A A
~~
HCM Average Control Delay 4.2 HCM Level of Service A
RleMJtVQfi.lm~olJ~iij;jacir,tajj(..)..'''. ''0150' . "
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s)
~tiQb1e-ap1!?~ti1iZaliqn~~-'!!i5.3t~%.I!!i'\~le;t1W!~J!Pllse::~ -
Analysis Period (min) 15
~€I'itj(;a .I!'a roun
~~'""">= ~~
.m
16.0
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
6: North Access & Michigan Road
S3A
6/28/2004
~ -""t ~- '-~ t t" \. ~./
.~~'-~~JiIIII1I~1
Lane Configurations 'I t+ '1'1 t+ 'I tt ." 'I tt+
~Q.~~~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
~a:,e'li1til' . Eta a. ,a~ . ,9'11 j,f) n.o' . '.,95" ;nOO" j~O 1OC,5
Frt .. 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
~~~
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1627 3242 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3339
~@
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1627 3242 1495 583 3343 1495 222 3339
'",. ..0.:3~
Peak. hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~(ipJ!~9~~2~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 155 0 0 0 69 0 0 0
~~l9.~~mIil9~~~~i9~_.it_6_G~~Rl.1:I;\~~$'~_1iI
Turn Type Split Split pm+pt Perrn pm+pt
~.
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
~~~~M~~j~!2"'7;'2~~
Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 3.8 19.3 19.3 58.8 58.6 58.6 73.9 69.7
~Citliat~~' .atl'" '. 003 3 0'.1 0',1'8" : ~ '0)5'.. a.5. 'O~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~e];iJ1:iJ.eM~Ejj;j~ie~!1)~:'!IO_3IQ~Q~3iQ~:;!JQ~O.;\!!3Io~"
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 58 57 574 265 316 1797 804 301 2135
~S]i~nj"Jjg!~tf1.tB~Q;"![~~ga;1~1'~O~~lli?;Z' . .....cO,.h..,a
vis Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06 0.36
!ij.G!~i!!i9~I?~~
Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 51.0 41.7 37.7 11.6 18.4 12.4 13.2 9.5
,oi;,Q"tj"SSIC>" . P . .~O. . '00. n"ooo 'L6 O'~.r :9~~
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 2.5 0.2 0.0 1.7 0.2 3.9 0.5
i?,!!JlaYI(~I" 5 ., "k 3 ..0 . 1.a,61 .a, '~~~!!III\!II
Level of Service D D DAB A C A
!i!im'e;. ea.$" ....0. '9!~~. "Iii
Approach LOS D DBA
IZl!~~
HCM Average Control Delay 16.7 HCM Level of Service B
!1f@1iI~~fjlID1i!~@.6~IVIt:at[o~~
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
~ctj_~~.Jj!IJI~!~6p10~~eV~lt()f{$~c'e~~~____
Analysis Period (min) 15
c_<,;]il(f~\!a@e.l! rou ..
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
6: North Access & Michigan Road
S5A
6/25/2004
./ -~ f- '-.... t ~ \.!~
~~~-~~_.
Lane Configurations "i to "i"i to "i H (' "i tto
r~JB1~;~!).~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
~i~~~
Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
~~t~~f.!J.Q:~_~!}(j~
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1627 3242 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3341
~~~~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1627 3242 1495 148 3343 1495 417 3341
~. M ._
Peak-nour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Ii .';" .''''68
RTOR Reduction (vpn) 0 6 0 0 24 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
~mT~lli~~__~Q"BtQ~~~~4.~~JLIiIJ!~Q
Turn Type Split Split pm+pt Perm pm+pt
~mE@
Permitted Pnases 2 2 6
~Qt<t~~\3]ee:~ !L!I.;92:. 99~
Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 93.1 93.0 93.0 100.5 96.7
~~~'Jjalio. . 0.03. Oilia O~fl3' ..".O~.lltZ.9~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~W<;.I.~~i'!1l$i~31Q~!~_.~3~_a,!O~2I~~().Jj\8iqJ!IF~rQlJila,tQ_
Lane Grp Cap (vpn) 51 50 263 121 110 2448 1095 368 2544
~miiQ!~~.olQ.~P~O~If@~
vis Ratio Perm 0.04 0.03 0.14
~~~!O:4.Qlj~~
Uniform Delay, d1 59.9 59.9 55.4 53.7 9.2 6.6 4.7 3.8 8.1
~gl2:~~~@~[(j~<iJJ5~
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.5
Jjl~lt\YL@' "60'6, . "53 5.2. . ,,~'3\'. ~O.41P.~
Level of Service E E E D A A A A A
tirn--'--' ""I . Y '9 ' ~ ' 4
~Pr.o.aclJ,',ea,r..l\$' , , ',i",' ,
Approach LOS E E A A
m.
HCM Average Cantral Delay 5.8 HCM Level af Service A
~M~9Igme,taLCaBs~;t,"ratlo. ',. ' or6 '
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 127.0 Sum af last time (s) 16.0
~ecttQlJt&aRilcj~~~~~;!~
Analysis Periad (min) 15
~~ticiiiii(~@!pcrl'! ' ",," ~ .~: " -:~jf;9I1_~~~a&~~~'W~~~
/
Baseline
A & F Engineering Ca., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
78
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
6: North Access & Michigan Road
S5A
6/25/2004
.-J _ "'). f' +- ''\ t I' \. J. ..;
-~~~~~~
lane Configurations 1j To 1j1j To 1j t-t r 1j tTo
~~-~~~~~~
Total lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
:.:!!EJfi41t!i!JL!i1'" p,~ ~O(!f ei. Z ."," ,Ok 0'.9
Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Bl!:j~~!~
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1627 3242 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3340
.
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1627 3242 1495 236 3343 1495 88 3340
~~ ,!lg' ~11:!' 198" .';0 ~
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~~~5~3~~
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 141 0 0 0 63 0 0 0
!'fA1l~~fill;>~:mg~I.RI2~~~JRlW1J,_,.a9.Jftl!~
Turn Type Split Split prn+pt Perrn prn+pt
~mr~~~~
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
~1i'J]!'!';1l ~ernj:G !~. :51:00 ,~fJg~n.
Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 3.9 36.4 36.4 76.2 76.0 76.0 93.7 89.5
~u'ar~:~W~[!ii9~~~~~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~€!IJIGI&1~I~O~jJiD1(s~,t\Q:IiIiI:3.!~_1Q.."31:0J!I\IIi'J!lIIII\!!II2i~1o..a1~Ql!li3'__
lane Grp Cap (vph) 45 43 808 373 125 1740 778 205 2047
~ii!'1i!lil~Q)j{t'{.~O!()~ot~!~3B-~",>f!1Jil!liPfOo"c01qJla~!;Q!Q.9mO~2'11ii11i1
vis Ratio Perm 0.02 0.11 0.51
~1~~~_~~Q,~
Uniform Delay, dl 69.4 69.4 49.6 42.5 20.7 35.0 18.8 50.6 18.9
I'It0g~e:~jQ~~b~11~51B1J!1J31IiliJ,)lq~W
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.5 2.4 0.2 0.1 43.6 0.3 35.9 1.6
IDj)!a~@, t ' fl...ili"~ " . m52<O ,,42[6 '1' '*1,,1.:' 19mt1:Jll\~~
level of Service E D D B E B F B
~Bi2i:9.1!'Cf)IIDelaiJ~', . . .'6" 6J:1" ,'~
Approach LOS D E C
[i1t~_
HCM Average Control Delay 43.4 HCM Level of Service D
1If0M"p,.'Jjoll!.!J.l~jtol€J1Ra<;' j aU -.' "OifJ3,
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 146.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
mt~i:S~li<t~ac;!!11~!ll1t~ti~~@]!II!~'le:t"oli$'lifiYjc.'~~~_~
Analysis Period (min) 15
~c' '.""o't,'c"a' "'~an.e,"'ro:u'n'". ",' ". . "'?~,,~'-)1__~~
..~_~~~"=rt:.~ '-', . ~..." ~~~~~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
79
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AM PEAK
6: North Access & Michigan Road
S6A
6/25/2004
."J _ ... i'" - "'- ~ t ~ .... + .;
~~~--~~~~~~!I
Lane Configurations 'I 1> '1'1 1> 'I tt 'f 'I tt
~!!Ii!Q.W~~~"'1(ep;()~~
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
!In~i~.
Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
~.
Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1627 3242 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3341
~mi1f~~
Satd. Flow (perm) 1671 1627 3242 1495 210 3343 1495 569 3341
~[ill[e]~5 . '.0 . 311'1
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~-a~(\7P]' 66 . ' Ii! '8
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 24 0 0 0 9 0 0 0
~<?r@P:mI~~ii1~l~~"t~__
Turn Type Split Split prn+pt Perm pm+pt
~.
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
~GJq1ifflQ!~xe~~"~~~
Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 3.9 8.1 8.1 102.1 102.0 102.0 109.9 105.9
~tu~ii11g~c~tr9~g~II~J!J,?",' :",0,06 ' ,00 , -.Q1c. QP6; '. ~
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
~D-cr-iE>&"" --~(-)""iih"~3o'O-~-3!O--"~O-~3'Q-"10-3~3!0"\.-'3'0-
kJ~"'I.~J:~c.*"_gQ~)PD5~e J&~~'L~':'~~;'u,-_.~~:L.~;~{~-:-5!~~e..J~:.~W,__~PJY~__,,,~~...;lJ~~
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 49 47 196 90 161 2545 1138 500 2640
~8[ij9'!~OjP'QiI(<iP10~O!OgW&.0!50~
vis Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 0.11
!!l~mi~~t}~~01o.~~
Uniform Delay, d1 63.4 63.4 60.5 59.2 5.8 5.0 3.9 2.6 5.9
~~~~\!~~
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.0
~~~~}?~~~
Level of Service E E E E A A A A A
~p.rqiIi:~j~~jay,H~ 4:6 . 61. 2" .
Approach LOS E E A
~I!I
HCM Average Control Delay 6.6 HCM Level of Service A
~~ooci!y'!rajio' - 0160-,
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
1m.~~!C~~~ti09~4r/.;~~!IQfl~~
Analysis Period (min) 15
c~€rmcaI~ltanetGtofjd::","",i{1 ~:' ,o/~: .. ;.:,.:~" W~_;:,' ,,; "* ., '~"f;': ' '
--=.."'_~". "',," _ ",~J1.,;;;;.." . =. ...-.....
,""",~
"
, ;j:- ,?'~
'1iii!-iBR
, ~y. .,.; Z1N;,c~
'._ !W>i?&Z!
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PM PEAK
6: North Access & Michigan Road
S6A
6/25/2004
.J- -t- f- '""'\ t ~ ~ ~.;
tit_~TiIIIIi_~~~_
Lane Configurations 1j to 1j1j to 1j tt r 1j tto
~~~~~i~_1~D :~ ii9D' ,90'
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
~J!!fQ!!1~
Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
~~~
Said. Flow (prol) 1671 1627 3242 1495 1671 3343 1495 1671 3340
~Imj~~~
Said. Flow (perm) 1671 1627 3242 1495 369 3343 1495 122 3340
~,'.., .< '$3 O. l' "00 4!JB
Peak-hour faclor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~XI!2 iIi.it '0.
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 156 0 0 0 54 0 0 0
~1iI1J1E1~iJf:i1eit~W{t~~~~~ll~QD_~_i:i(;1J.~
Turn Type Split Splil prn+pl Perm pm+pl
~Qle(;te:-d!Jija5e5!1" . 1
Permitted Phases 6
~~~G'~<?}I~~ 8313
Effeclive Green, g (s) 3.8 3.8 84.3
~fl!iataolli6~ml!~~'!03 .OliO, .
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
M~,!:!EJ.e!~~~JQPl($)~31gj\j;W'~3~~!;.~.~~!D~~~3.!J~_3.IQ_~~lQ:K~3J~_
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 52 51 560 258 210 1873 838 245 2211
~ISIBati9:!~fQI!I'_"-6~~.qm!l_coIiL .am ".0 Cfi},!I - !j 10 '36
vis Ratio Perm 0.02 0.07 0.46
mI~~~1!~ljJi..JJ,lp.6~~eIIB~~QmIIII!II
Uniform Delay, d1 57.0 57.0 46.7 42.3 11.8 21.4 12.5 31.0 10.9
~gte5sJOrHF~ o.r .00r . 1,,01):0.50 .< .26
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 2.9 0.2 2.7 0.2 12.3
I'tea:il {$ .. 8,0.'_ $!I.9! . ,\1'20' ~KUI3,!I-
Level of Service E E D DBA
~Bii119a01Jiji}e!aYk(j'!)' .- 58:'0, ' . {-';"!lm. , .2.5 .
Approach LOS E D B B
lll11~
HCM Average Control Delay 18.1 HCM Level of Service B
I;j~Mt,~QtumeJJQ!~B.acl!Y. (atld!._ .':':~'OY75
Actuated Cycle Length (5) 121.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
'.!J!.~!5~ti:oni~~l.1a~ill)i1J!!ljilzatiQ~.73.!I~ !'.< .I~ 'xllieveiLe ISe 'ce. . rID '1Bif~1IfB
Analysis Period (min) 15
F1iIer,ii1CaI~J;p..yp~J!B.~~4 . ....~~~
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
81
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE CONSTRUcnON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ADDITIONAL FIGURES
82
~~ /-465
~~
FIGURE A
GENERATED NON PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :
"-
I ~
,m
I !
~
,
~
~
I ~
~
o
I ~
'ii
o
/
~
/
I N
"
106TH ST
96TH ST
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
83
AI
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
. = NEGLIGIBLE
c:::i
ex:
;::
~
3
'<(
. AI
.
106TH ST
.
.
. LEGEND
. 00 = A.M. PEAK HDUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HDUR
= NEGLIGIBLE
I
.
I
I ,
. ~
~
I ~
3
"
I 96TH ST
~
~
I ~
~
0
~
., {-465
~
0
I '-
w
~
~
i"
"
. ~
~
0 FIGURE 8
~
=
~
,
I 8 GENERATED PASS-BY
'i? TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0
s:
= FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
0
I , (WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
~
'i? DUKE CONSTRUCTION WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
0
~ CARMEL, IN
0 @A & F Engineering Co., llC 2004
2
~ "All Rights Reserved"
. N 84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I;
:b
o
I~
"
I!
~
,
I
x
I!
~
o
II
o
~
I~
AI
106TH ST
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
= NEGLIGIBLE
(:)
ct
~
~
3
'I:
96TH ST
~~
~~
. FIGURE
1~465
c
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
GENERATED NON PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA
RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"All Rights Reserved"
85
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I;
,
~
o
Ii
RI
106TH ST
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
, = NEGLIGIBLE
r"
':/
~
,
,
c;)
ct
~
~
3
'<:
96TH ST
"
~~
~~
. FIGURE
1-465
I!
~
,
r
II
~
=
o
I~
o
3.
D
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
GENERATED PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED VIA
RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A &" r Engineering Co., llC 2004
"All Rights Reserved"
IN
86
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
I :
"
I';
,m
I !
~
,
"
8
I ~
f
~
o
I~
~
o
-;;
o
2
/
IN
AI
"
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
. = NEGLIGIBLE
~
~
~
3
"{
96TH ST.
,
rn
o
/-465
FIGURE E
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
GENERATED NON PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION I
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A & F Engineering Co., llC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
87
I
AI
I
"
J06TH ST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
~
I:
~
I;
.;J,
,
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
. = NEGLIGIBLE
@
~
~
3
'<
96TH ST
,
~
o
/-465
I!
~
,
I
I!
~
o
It
"
/
IN
,
FIGURE F
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
GENERATED PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION/
WITH DIRECT MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS)
@A & F Engineering Co., llC 2004
"All Rights Reserved"
88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I:
"
Ii
"
II
,
I
II
"
~
a
Ii
o
2
I~
AI
106TH ST
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
, = NEGLIGIBLE
'-
(:::i
tt:
~
~
3
~
96TH ST
"'~
~.
~~
FIGURE
1-465
G
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
GENERATED NON PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSIONI
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED
VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
@A & r Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"All Rights Reserved"
89
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I;
:l
o
I~
AI
I06TH ST
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
. = NEGLIGIBLE
g
~
~
g
'"
96TH ST
"
~~
~~
. FIGURE
/-465
I:
,
~
II
~
~
o
IJ
o
Ii;
/
H
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
GENERATED PASS-BY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION /
MICHIGAN ROAD ACCESS PROVIDED
VIA RETAIL PARKWAY ONLY)
IN
@A & r Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....J
.....
I ~
I
~
Ii
I~
V)
I
J:
x
II
w
~
::>
CI
It
..,.
o
o
N
I;:
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
96TH ST.
/-465
FIGURE I
REDISTRIBUTED EXISTING
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
DUE TO COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
-'
......
I ~
'I
<.0
o
I;
,CD
I ~
=>
VJ
I
:I:
Ij
/
!.oJ
:x::
=>
a
It
"""
o
~
1/
. N
106TH ST
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
96TH ST.
~~
~. \--------=::::::
~~
FIGURE J
1-465
REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR EXISTING TARGET SITE
DUE TO COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION
DUKEC.ONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-'
......
I ~
'I
u>
o
I ~
fD
I ~
::>
(,/)
I
I
x
II
:>0::
:::>
o
It
v
o
o
N
I ;:
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
CC
~
~
3
-q:
96TH ST.
1-465
DUKEiCONSTR.UCTION
CARMEL, IN
~~
FIGURE K
YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION)
NOTE: THESE VOLUMES DO NOT
INCLUDE THE GENERATED TRAFFIC
FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
OR VACANT LAND
@A & F Engineering Co., lLC 2004
"All Rights Reserved"
93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-'
I ;
I"
c.o
o
I'~
,CD
I ~
::>
U1
I
J:
II
~
::>
a
It
'<t
a
o
N
I~
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
96TH ST
Ii
~~
~~
· FIGURE
/-465
DUKE CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL, IN
L
REDIS TRIBUTED
YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION)
NOTE: THESE VOLUMES DO NOT
INCLUDE THE GENERA TED TRAFFIC
FROM THE PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT
OR VACANT LAND
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"All Rights Reserved"
94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-'
u...
I ~
I
to
o
I ;
fP
I ~
:::J
(f)
I
:I:
X
I w
I
u.J
:><:
:::J
I i
./'
...
o
o
N
I>:
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
CJ
a::
~
~
3
'q;:
96TH ST.
/-465
FIGURE M
TOTAL GENERA TED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND
(WITHOUT COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION)
DUKE CON.STRUCTION
CARMEL, .IN
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-'
LL..;
I ;
'I
<0
o
I i
I !
U)
I
:J:
x
II
w
~
::>
a
I t
v
o
o
N
I ~
106TH ST.
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) =: P.M. PEAK HOUR
* =: NEGLIGIBLE
c:i
CC
~
~
g
~
96TH ST.
~~ /-465
~~
FIGURE N
TOT AL GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND
(WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION)
DUKE. CONSTRUCTION
CARMEL,IN
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
96